Published: 2 October 2026
Europe’s small-scale coastal fishers have spent years navigating the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), often up against delays, rigid eligibility rules and a chronic lack of upfront capital. From 2028, EMFAF is set to be integrated into a much larger instrument: the National and Regional Partnership Fund (NRPF). This article sets out what is actually known about the NRPF so far, compares it with the recommendations that BlueMove has put directly to the European Commission, and flags clearly where the picture remains genuinely open.
Why is the EU rethinking fisheries funding?
The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy implementation is supported by the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1139, worth just over six billion euros for the 2021-2027 period. On 16 July 2025, the European Commission presented its proposal for the EU’s 2028-2034 long-term budget. Rather than renewing EMFAF as a standalone fund, the Commission proposed folding fisheries funding into the National and Regional Partnership Fund (NRPF), a single instrument that also covers cohesion policy, agriculture and rural development.
The NRPF designates the EU’s proposed umbrella budget instrument for 2028-2034, worth close to €865 billion overall. Rather than separate sectoral programmes, each Member State would set out its spending priorities through a National and Regional Partnership Plan (NRPP), combining national and, where relevant, regional implementation arrangements. According to the European Commission’s own Q&A on the proposal, a minimum of €2 billion within the NRPPs would be reserved for core elements of the Common Fisheries Policy, including sustainable fisheries, aquaculture and marine conservation.
That figure matters: the planned budget has been cut by a third at a time when fisheries are under increasing pressure from rising fuel prices. EMFAF ring-fenced €6.108 billion specifically for sustainable fisheries, aquaculture and marine conservation over its 2021-2027 cycle. Compared with this envelope, the Commission’s explicitly identified minimum for fisheries, aquaculture and ocean-related activities is substantially lower. However, this is a minimum rather than a confirmed ceiling, and Member States may allocate additional resources through their national plans. The LIFE platform, a European low impact fisheries network, describes the change bluntly as fisheries funding being “subsumed” into the wider fund, adding that it remains “far from clear how this huge readjustment could help small-scale fisheries”.
None of this is settled law. As of this writing, the NRPF regulation and its fisheries-specific companion text are still proposals moving through the ordinary legislative procedure. By September 2026, however, the European Parliament’s work had moved beyond the initial scrutiny phase: Parliament’s interim position supports a ring-fenced allocation of €7.29 billion for fisheries and aquaculture, compared with the Commission’s proposed minimum of €2 billion. The final amount remains subject to negotiations with the Council. Reporting from Brussels notes that the dossier’s scale and political sensitivity rule out any rapid adoption.
What the NRPF could mean for small-scale fishers, and what remains uncertain
What the proposal currently offers
Several elements of the NRPF proposal speak directly to small-scale fishers’ interests. The Commission proposal appears to preserve preferential support for small-scale coastal fishing, including the possibility of higher support rates for certain operations. The final support rates and conditions remain subject to the negotiations and the content of national partnership plans. Generational renewal and the energy transition of the fishing fleet are listed among the fund’s stated priorities. Community-led local development, the mechanism through which Fisheries Local Action Groups currently operate, is also explicitly listed by the Commission as an eligible use of NRPP funds, which suggests a route to continuity for that model, even though the proposal texts reviewed do not name Fisheries Local Action Groups individually. This kind of continuity matters on the ground: BlueMove’s field teams have repeatedly seen how much small-scale fishers rely on local, community-based structures to make sense of funding rules designed at EU level.
- A minimum of €2 billion reserved within national plans for core Common Fisheries Policy elements
- Generational renewal and energy transition confirmed as stated priorities
- Community-led local development explicitly listed as an eligible investment area
Beyond the 2028-2034 proposal itself, the Commission has also moved to make the current EMFAF easier for small-scale fishers to access. On 21 September 2026, it proposed a targeted amendment to the EMFAF Regulation, which would introduce a funding scheme dedicated specifically to small-scale coastal fishing, ease engine-replacement rules to speed up the fleet’s energy transition, and raise the budgetary ceiling for fleet measures from 15% to 30% of each Member State’s allocation. This amendment is separate from the NRPF and would apply while EMFAF still runs, but it signals that some of the friction small-scale fishers have described to BlueMove may ease even before the new fund takes over.
What is not yet confirmed
The gap between what EMFAF guaranteed at EU level and what the NRPF proposes is where most of the genuine uncertainty sits. Aid rates, priorities and the size of the envelope actually allocated to fisheries would largely be decided by each Member State through its own national plan, rather than fixed centrally as under EMFAF.
“Bringing funding together into a single common fund runs against the needs of fishers, which are local and specific, as we have seen through BlueMove’s work. At the same time, there is a form of decentralisation and empowerment happening at country level.”
— Camille Richer, Environmental Fund Manager at BlueMove
That tension, between a more centralised EU budget architecture and funding decisions pushed down to national and regional level, runs through the entire NRPF proposal. The €2 billion minimum itself currently sits in a Commission communication rather than in the binding text of the draft regulation, which means its legal weight is not yet settled.
The practical, operational reforms BlueMove asked the Commission to introduce, such as standard advance payments (pre-financing of grants), calls for applications timed to the fisheries off-season, flexible delivery windows and adapted digital communication, are administrative practices rather than budget lines. These are not abstract requests: they mirror difficulties BlueMove’s own teams have run into directly while helping fishers navigate EMFAF’s rules. Timing adds another layer of uncertainty. EMFAF runs until the end of 2027. Under the proposed timetable, Member States would submit their National and Regional Partnership Plans from 31 January 2028 at the earliest, with the Council then given a further four weeks to approve each plan, according to the European Parliament’s research service. The timetable remains dependent on the adoption of the underlying regulations and on subsequent negotiations. This compressed sequence leaves limited room for a smooth handover between the two funding periods, a concern that fishers relying on predictable, timely decisions will want to see addressed well before 2028.
Finally, on fleet modernisation and decarbonisation specifically, the LIFE platform notes that while these remain named priorities, there is currently little clarity on how they would actually be funded for small-scale operators, describing the situation as raising “more questions than answers”.
None of this means the NRPF will necessarily be worse for small-scale fishers than EMFAF. A single, integrated plan per Member State could, in principle, make it easier to combine fisheries support with related investments in ports, coastal infrastructure or local economic diversification. Whether that potential materialises, or whether fisheries simply compete for attention against much larger cohesion, aquaculture and agriculture budgets within the same national envelope, is not something the texts published so far allow anyone to state with confidence.
Conclusion
The National and Regional Partnership Fund keeps several doors open for small-scale fishers, including the possibility of higher aid rates and continued support for community-led local development. But it also closes the door on the certainty that came with a dedicated, EU-wide sectoral fund, replacing it with a patchwork of national decisions still to be made. Whether the practical difficulties BlueMove has documented on the ground in Croatia, Cyprus, Greece and Portugal are actually resolved will depend less on the wording of the NRPF regulation than on how each Member State chooses to implement it.
FAQ
What is the National and Regional Partnership Fund?
The National and Regional Partnership Fund (NRPF) is the European Commission’s proposed umbrella budget instrument for 2028-2034, worth close to €865 billion. It would merge several EU funds, including cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, into a single national plan per Member State.
What is the difference between EMFAF and the NRPF?
EMFAF is a standalone, sector-specific fund for fisheries and aquaculture, adopted under Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 and running until 2027. The NRPF, if adopted, would not replace EMFAF with an equivalent sectoral fund; instead, fisheries funding would become one component within a much larger, multi-sector instrument, with a budget specifically reserved for core Common Fisheries Policy elements.
What is the difference between the National and Regional Partnership Fund and the National and Regional Partnership Plans?
The National and Regional Partnership Fund is the EU-level budget instrument itself. The National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) are the implementing documents: one plan per Member State, setting out how that country intends to spend its share of the fund across cohesion, agriculture, fisheries and other covered policy areas.
Has the NRPF been officially adopted?
No. As of this writing, the NRPF and its fisheries-specific companion regulation are proposals working through the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure. They have not yet been adopted by the Council and the European Parliament.
Will small-scale fishers still be eligible for up to 100% funding?
The Commission proposal appears to preserve preferential support for small-scale coastal fishing, including the possibility of higher aid rates for certain operations. The final aid rates and conditions remain subject to the negotiations and the content of national partnership plans.
When will the NRPF take effect?
The NRPF is designed to cover the 2028-2034 period. Under the proposed timetable, Member States would submit their National and Regional Partnership Plans from 31 January 2028 at the earliest, with formal approval steps following. The overall legislative process, including adoption of the regulation itself, is still ongoing.
