A number of environmental and developmental NGOs, active in one or more of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs/ACs), elaborated a joint document providing some propositions to be included in the debate about regionalisation and the future ACs in the context of CFP reform. The document highlights the key role of RACs in terms of sharing information, seeking stakeholder advice in fisheries management and providing a great opportunity for resolving conflicts, enhancing dialogue and understanding between different stakeholders. It should however remain an advisory body. The main concern about regionalisation is that it would extend the role of RACs and increase its workload. Few issues are raised regarding the rules and tasks of ACs. On financial aspects, first, considering the funding, there should be no changes but the Commission should consider increasing ACs funding if the workload due to regionalisation increases. Secondly, some suggestions regarding how to have fair membership fees according to the size and financial capacity of the member organisations are suggested.
On the matter of participation/representation, the current stakeholder mix in the RACs needs to be reviewed, both in terms of overall structure (1/3 and 2/3) and in terms of in which members belong to which group Representation and participation rules should be enhanced, redressing the balance of different interests groups. Indeed, large-scale sector interests in the RACs should be balanced with small-scale fisheries interests. Plus, trade unions should clearly be classed as sector representatives and women’s networks were already defined as part of the ‘fisheries sector’ in the Council Decision of 2004. The document proposes therefore 3 new participation/representation schemes, with the advantages and setbacks of each proposition. The second proposition suggests that, in regions where the small-scale fishing interests (including catching, processing and marketing operations) represent an important part of the sector, the current division of seats is revised to instead consist of 1) 1/3 for representatives of fisheries sector 2) 1/3 for representatives of small-scale and coastal fishing interests, anglers and women’s networks, and 3) 1/3 for representatives of other interest groups. This will require an agreement on a definition of small-scale fisheries. The advantage is that the representation would be better balanced, as no stakeholder group would be overly dominating. Such a division would also help secure better representation of small-scale fishing interests (the majority of the EU fishing sector in number of people). However, it could be difficult to determine which group stakeholders belong in.
Regarding the international dimension, in order to get better prepared for international meetings, it is suggested that RACs receive well in advance all the relevant and necessary information. Regarding the LDRAC (LDAC), a delegation of stakeholders should participate to international fora meetings and EU bilateral negociations of fisheries agreements. The LDRAC should play an active role in facilitating a dialogue between EU and third countries, including third country stakeholders, on issues arising from SFAs, RFMOs, private arrangements/chartering and, when appropriate, international fora discussions. The lack of a formal process for consultation of developing third country stakeholders (sector and NGOs) is also a challenge to be addressed. Moreover, in order to improve participation by these countries’ stakeholders, the impacts of EU operations on the concerns and interests of third countries should be better reflected in key documents such as the FPAs (SFAs) evaluations. The EU should certainly also promote third country (and EU) stakeholder consultation by RFMOs.
See the report send to DG MARE in joint document