EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 17.9.2026

SWD(2026) 661 final/2

CORRIGENDUM

This document corrects document SWD(2026)661 final of 10.09.2026

Correction of a number of typos and changes in various parts of the text.

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 context .............................................................................................................. 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 OPTIONS ..................................................... 9

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

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

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

4. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 13

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 .............................................. 20

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 ................. 33

5. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................... 36

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

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

to the ORs’ 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

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

2

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 ........................................................................................................ 49

3.2.9. Taxation ................................................................................................................. 50

3.2.10. Cohesion policy ................................................................................................... 50

3.2.11. Education & Culture & Research ..................................................................... 50

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

challenges and permanent constraints to 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 ORs (2004, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2017,

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

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

behind the 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 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 growth in the ORs 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 and addresses

certain challenges posed by EU legislation. Specifically, the SWD (i) presents the consultation

process for gathering input and feedback from stakeholders; (ii) explains the legislation

covered; and (iii) describes the measures for streamlining the regulatory framework and

considers the impact of these proposed legislative amendments.

1.1. EU policy context

The EU policy framework relevant to the ORs comprises all relevant EU sectoral policies with

a special impact on the ORs, including sectors such as 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.

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

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

1 French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, Réunion 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

• Previous Commission strategies, particularly the 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 and the SWD

“The role of cohesion policy in the implementation of the Communication”10, which

accompanied that report and presented the key support provided by cohesion policy to the

ORs 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 ORs;

• 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 in the conclusions, resolutions and opinions of other EU

institutions, including in:

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

Communication and called on the Member States to take action to support their ORs, 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 ORs 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 ORs;

• 2025 Council conclusions No 6787/25, 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, which stressed the importance of fully implementing the 2022 OR strategy;

• 2023 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication on the OR14 , which

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

in the OR compared with mainland Europe;

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. 14 2023/C 157/04.

6

• 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 in all 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 judgment 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 establishing funds and programmes under the

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

OR17, in 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, bottlenecks and barriers to the socio-

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

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

particular measures aimed at addressing specific challenges with a transregional and/or

transnational dimension or at 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).

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.

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

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 ORs 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 Commissions Have Your Say portal19 between November 2025 and January 2026 with

the purpose of collecting 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 ORs 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

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

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

which were identified include high 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

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

on the impact of new legislation impacting the OR, in order to better address their specific

constraints.

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 conducted at the request of the Commission on the impact of COVID-

19 in the OR21 (2021).

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

stocks22 (2022).

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

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

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.

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. 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.

9

• 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.

3. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND POLICY OPTIONS

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 is being applied with 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 deeper, more systematic application of Article 349,

TFEU, so 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:

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

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

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

legislation to be adopted in order to help the ORs address their specific challenges. Moreover,

European Court of Justice, in its judgement 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 inconsistently 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 ORs, which, in turn, has had an impact on key economic sectors

in the ORs 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 tropical crops

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

are critical sustainable production sectors in regions where climate and geographical

constraints limit other agricultural alternatives.

• Consequence 1: Challenges under current EU legislation

As a consequence, certain EU rules may create obstacles for the ORs 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 declarations and appeals by the Presidents

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

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

in terms of their effect on the ORs and to be better adapted to their realities in these regions.

For further references please see the synopsis report of the consultation actions linked to the

regulatory package for the ORs in annex I to this report and the Joint Contributions presented

by the CPRUP37.

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

risks restricting domestic food production in French Guiana, where 95% of the territory is

covered by tropical forest, thus hindering local food sovereignty and increasing reliance on less

sustainable imports.

• 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 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 of the EU, as evidenced by the EU

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

37 Bibliothèque | RUP: Conférence des Présidents 38 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/assets/regional-competitiveness/index.html#/

11

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 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 ORs, including small and medium-sized

companies (SMEs), and to deepen their access to the single market, the Commission needs to

take measures to capitalise on these regions’ assets, support the 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 the fisheries sector, specifically

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

of the EU, local processing operations are not covered by the current Autonomous Tariff Quotas

i.e. Regulation (EU) 2023/2720, resulting in a 15% tariff. 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 to be proposed for adoption in

September 2026, which addresses the key bottlenecks and shortcomings for the ORs under

current EU legislation. Further amendments to the sectoral legislation are identified in the new

strategy for the ORs, also being adopted in September 2026. As part of which additional

regulatory amendments to support the ORs will be or may later be proposed.

Figure 2: Objectives

39 Inforegio - Ninth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion

12

3.3. Policy options

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

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

the European Court of Justice40. This has resulted in the Article 349 TFEU being inconsistently

applied across EU policies and legislation.

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

targeted ex post review of the key issues in 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 systematic ex ante assessments will be carried out on EU legislation

and initiatives in policy areas expected to have a significant impact on the ORs, and cooperation

will be stepped up between the Commission, the ORs and their Member States.

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

13

Figure 3:Flowchart depicting the identified problem, its drivers and 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:

1. Quantitative information collectedfrom different official sources, notably from

Eurostat and the French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE),

14

was analysed together with information gathered from responses to a formal Call for

Evidence (see chapter 2), which provided valuable inputs including evidence on

implementation problems, territorial impacts and stakeholder concerns.

Often only limited data is available for the ORs 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 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.

The proposal for a regulatory package adapts 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 very limited in scope with a clearly defined target, as it is restricted to the ORs 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 Commission proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013

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

COM(2021) 95 final.

15

[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], Regulation (EU) No 2023/2720 [on autonomous tariff quotas], and Regulation (EU)

No 2024/1348 [on asylum procedure]. 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 Réunion, 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 ORs

(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

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

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. 44 COM(2021) 95 final.

16

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

In the sectors benefiting from tax

differentiation 80.36 104.70 65.98 77.11

Sources: INSEE -FARE46

Problem identified

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. 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.

17

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 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 CN codes, leading 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 CN 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 ORs 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

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

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

the customs nomenclature. It will also ensure that the measures remain relevant and effective

without the need for repeated legislative intervention.

Furthermore, it is necessary to take account of changes in the economic fabric and market

conditions in the ORs while the scheme is in application by allowing additional local products

to be included in the scheme. Therefore, the list of products eligible for a tax differential

compared with similar products not originating from the ORs concerned will be supplemented

with 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 Réunion 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 will offer legal clarity for the French ORs’ 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 ORs.

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 ORs’ 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

19

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 that is currently 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

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 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

49 SWD(2021) 44 final.

20

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, 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 offer products that have been 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 Réunion, 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 Réunion 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.

• Iron and steel sector: there is 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

21

Regulation (EU) No 1308/201350 of 17 December 2013 established a common organisation of

the markets in agricultural products and repealed 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 ORs are

produced domestically and traded together with fruit and vegetables, even though they are not

considered fresh or processed fruit and vegetables sectors as defined in under Article 1(2)

points (i) and (j) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. As a consequence, those products are

ineligible for support granted to operational programmes of producer organisations in the fruits

and vegetables sectors under Title III, Chapter III, Section 2 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

from the French Ministry of Agriculture which, while not presenting the total production

level, shows the volumes effectively marketed52 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

The 2024 IEDOM report for French Guiana estimates the levels of tropical root production

in this OR54. However, the IEDOM reports for the other French ORs do not provide data on

tropical roots production. Data from ‘Agreste’ provides figures specifically for yams and

manioc production in the French ORs in 2024.

(in tonnes) Yams Manioc

Guadeloupe 2 182 639

Martinique 1 118 170

French Guiana 2 500 13 000

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. 54 https://www.iedom.fr/Rapport-annuel-economique-de-la-Guyane-2024?lang=fr

22

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 ORs is provided below. Precise data is difficult to obtain, as these crops are often

subsistence-based crops and are only partially commercialised. Nevertheless, reliable orders of

magnitude are available. Tropical root crops in the French ORs are grown on a surface area of

only a few hundred hectares in the Caribbean, compared with a surface area exceeding 7,000

ha (around 23% of utilised agricultural area) in French Guiana.

French Guiana (by far the largest producer)

• Cassava is the traditional staple food (‘couac’ flour made from cassava root)

• Large agricultural 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 proportion is subsistence farming

→ 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 bananas produced for export,

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

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 ORs 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, 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 ORs.

Producer organisations are true pillars of food sovereignty. However, due to the small 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 to mainland EU producers.

In the ORs, the development and operation of collective 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 ORs, 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 by 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, i.e. by adding them to parts IX

and X of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, tropical root products, in their fresh stage,

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.

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 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

24

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 give essential local productions greater 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, 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 food security and food

sovereignty in the French ORs 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 dependency

on food imports and 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 by 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 ORs. 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.

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 ORs, 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.”

57 Special report 03/2026: Specific measures to support agriculture in the EU outermost regions |

European Court of Auditors.

25

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 further, 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 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

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

58 Regulation - 2023/1115 - EN - EUR-Lex. 59 Regulation was amended twice: in December 2024 and December 2025.

26

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 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, well 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.

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.

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

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 and 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 from the application of the Regulation

relevant products that are produced and consumed locally in French Guiana, or that are

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.

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

overseas territories in 2023.

28

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

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.

29

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 2025. 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 2025. 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 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, while the poverty

rate is alarming63. The unemployment rate, which is above 30%, is also a major challenge. This

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 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

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. 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.

30

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 were

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, should

have been 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

the 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. Fleet 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 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 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

31

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 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

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, 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

32

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 due to 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, 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

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

33

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 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, and relies on fish harvested in France’s EEZ.

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

34

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 ORs (Guadeloupe, French Guiana,

Martinique, Mayotte, 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 ORs,

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 ORs 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

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.

35

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 ORs 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 ORs. 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 ORs,

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.

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.

36

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 ORs

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 ORs. 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.

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 ORs;

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) the Asylum Procedure Regulation.

37

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 ORs, measure 1 applies to five French

ORs, measures 3, 4 and 5 apply each to a single OR and measure 6 applies to the French ORs.

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 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 ORs, 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 ORs (Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique,

Réunion and Mayotte) and on migration management in the French ORs.

The follow-up actions identified in the new EU strategy for the ORs to be adopted in September

2026, which include carrying out further legislative revisions, strengthening cooperation

between the Commission and the ORs, and providing EU funding under the next MFF, will

continue to bring further concrete benefits for the inhabitants of the ORs, 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 ORs. 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

ORs.

Other EU sectoral legislation relevant for the ORs is currently undergoing sectoral legislative

revision, allowing potential impacts in the ORs to be assessed and, where necessary, addressed.

Specific examples that can be cited include the ongoing revision of the General Block

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.

66 COM(2026) 616 final, 17 July 2026. 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.

38

In line with Article 349 TFEU, the Commission will continue to ensure that the specific

characteristics of the ORs are also given appropriate consideration in any relevant future EU

legislation and initiatives that impact the ORs.

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 ORs.

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 ORs, 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 ORs’

Presidents and ministers of their Member States in May 2025.

• a High-Level Forum for the ORs 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 ORs, 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 ORs’ Presidents and the responsible ministers of their Member

States

The design of the new Strategy for the ORs started with targeted letters sent by the EVP for

cohesion and reforms to the Presidents of the ORs and the respective national Ministers in May

2025. This allowed for better matching with regional priorities.

All nine EU ORs and their Member States (France, Portugal, and Spain) provided

contributions to the targeted consultation by the third quarter 2025. France and Spain submitted

additional contributions in the following months to complement their original responses with

statistical and factual evidence.

40

There is consensus for a stronger application of Article 349 TFEU and for the systematic

adaption of 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 the Programme of Options Specifically relating to Remoteness and

Insularity (POSEI), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the 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 ORs.

• 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 ORs as innovation hubs through dedicated research

opportunities and more flexible State aid rules.

• Strategic role, migration and regional cooperation: recognising ORs' geopolitical

importance in EU defence, security and space policies, strengthening support for

migration management, and fostering cooperation, trade and connectivity with

neighbouring countries.

2. High-Level Forum for the outermost regions

The High-Level Forum for the ORs took place on 18 November 2025 in Brussels, under the

chairmanship of the 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 ORs, 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 Union and its ORs”,

41

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 ORs 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 ORs, 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 ORs (CPRUP).

2.2 Plenary Working Session

During the Plenary Working Session, the Presidents of the nine ORs 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 ORs 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 ORs at the center of the decision-making process.

2.2.1 Outermost regions strategy

Presidents from the ORs 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 ORs, 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

autonomy. Réunion and the Azores further stressed the importance of food security, resilient

42

transport systems, short supply chains, and deeper regional integration to enhance the long-

term resilience and sustainability of the ORs.

There was broad support for stronger regional cooperation and for reinforcing the geostrategic

role of the ORs. 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 neighbouring

regions.

Martinique, the Azores, and Réunion called for stronger economic development, greater

attractiveness, and demographic renewal in the ORs, 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, ORs 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 ORs’ 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 ORs’ 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 ORs 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 ORs.

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 ORs 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 ORs.

Organisations from mainland France provided the largest share of contributions in this group,

representing 25.5% (14 of 55) of all respondents. Among the ORs, 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 ORs’ 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 submitted by

business representatives, 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 member states and

ORs 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 ORs as EU external borders and as

gateways to key neighbourhoods in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Indian Ocean basins. The ORs

represent a geo-strategic asset for the entire Union.

The CPRUP and the Canary Islands, together with the French ORs and business

stakeholders, called for stronger regional integration of the ORs with neighbouring third

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Italy

Belgium

French Guayne

Martinique

Guadeloupe

Canary Islands

La Réunion

France

45

countries through concrete EU action under the “Greater Neighbourhood”, 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 ORs 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 ORs’

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 ORs. 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 ORs 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 ORs, 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 ORs. 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 ORs 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 ORs 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 ORs under the “Fit for 55”

package.

The CPRUP, France, the Canary Islands, Madeira, the Azores and several industrial

stakeholders highlighted the ORs’ 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 neighbouring 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 ORs, 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 ORs.

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 ORs 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 ORs 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 ORs.

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 ORs 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 ORs the Canary Islands and the Azores called

for different adaptations in water use and wastewater treatment regulations to the specific

realities of the ORs. 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 ORs. In particular, the CPRUP, France, Spain, the French ORs,

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 the

postponement 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.

There was a wide call from the CPRUP, and several ORs’ business stakeholders for the use

of EMFAF funding for fleet renewal, fishing devices and cooperation with neighbouring third

49

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 ORs 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. ORs’ 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.

3.2.8. Single Market

Contributions highlighted the need for targeted regulatory adaptations to better reflect the

operating conditions of the ORs. The CPRUP called for more flexible administrative and

50

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

ORs, 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 ORs and support

evidence-based policymaking.

3.2.9. Taxation

Contributions advocated for EU taxation and customs reforms to address the ORs’ 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 ORs. 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 ORs.

The Canary Islands proposed the creation of a dedicated ORs climate adaptation package

within the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), aimed at accelerating the delivery of

resilience and disaster-prevention investments.

3.2.11. Education & Culture & Research

Under Erasmus+ and Creative Europe, the CPRUP, Madeira, 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

51

financial support to beneficiaries. Contributors also proposed recognising the ORs 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 ORs, 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 ORs facing sustained

migratory pressure. It asked for developing specific indicators for the ORs, greater

consideration of ORs’ 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

ORs 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 ORs 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

application of EU rules through targeted derogations, regulatory adaptations, and tailored

funding opportunities for the ORs.

One of the main issues raised by construction, industrial, and agricultural associations

concerned CBAM. The Industrial Development Association of Réunion (ADIR), French

Guiana Livestock Industry Association (INTERVIG), Confederation of Small and

Medium-Sized Enterprises (CPME), Martinique Association for the Promotion of

52

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 ORs, 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 "OR 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 ORs.

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 ORs. 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 ORs.