REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILS: CONSULTATION PAPER
This document is also available in pdf format (20k)
Contents
Proposal for a Council Decision establishing RAC's under the Common Fisheries Policy (pdf 181k)
Introduction
1. Summary of issues
2. Issues for consideration in the draft Decision
Introduction
This consultation paper seeks views on the European Commission's proposal for a Council Decision on Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) to advise on fisheries management in sea areas which fall under the jurisdiction of more than one Member State. It explains the background to the proposals and highlights a series of key questions to consider.
Responses
Responses should be sent, by email if possible, to Josie Swan at: josie.swan@scotland.gsi.gov.uk.
Alternatively, write to:
Josie Swan
RAC Consultation
Sea Fisheries Division
Room 510
Pentland House
47 Robb's Loan
Edinburgh
EH14 1TY
The deadline for responses is Friday 6 February.
It is our intention that, at the end of the consultation period, this paper and copies of the responses received will be made publicly available through the main Scottish Executive library at K Spur, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, EH11 3XD. It will be assumed, therefore, that all responses can be made publicly available unless respondents indicate clearly that they wish all or part of their response to be excluded from this arrangement. The library will supply copies on request to personal callers or telephone enquiries (Tel: 0131 244 4565). An administrative charge, to cover the cost of photocopying and postage, will apply.
1. Summary of issues
The purpose of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs).
The establishment of RACs under the reformed Common Fisheries Policy is intended to increase the participation of those affected by the CFP to get better and more regionally focused fisheries management. Essentially, RACs will be coalitions of a wide range of interest groups, the majority of which will be from the fishing sector, organised to review and inform regional implementation of the CFP. The European Commission and Member States' administrations would not be members but would have observer status.
Community legislation in the form of Regulation 2371/2002 and this proposed Council Decision on RACs provide guidance for their establishment and development and set out the links between RACs and the rest of the policy making structure. RACs will have a set of formally recognised rights and duties, defining their place as part of the CFP.
Existing legislation on RACs.
Articles 31 and 32 of the framework Regulation for the Common Fisheries Policy EC 2371/2002 outline the purpose and operation of RACs as follows:
- RACs shall contribute to the CFP's goal of ensuring exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. To this end they will (in particular) advise the Commission on matters of fisheries management in respect of certain sea areas or fishing zones.
- They shall be composed principally of fishermen and other representatives of interests affected by the Common Fisheries Policy.
- A RAC shall cover sea areas falling under the jurisdiction of at least two Member States.
- RACs may:
(a) submit recommendations and suggestions, of their own accord or at the request of the Commission or a Member State, on matters relating to fisheries management to the Commission or the Member State concerned;
(b) inform the Commission or the Member State concerned about problems relating to the implementation of Community rules and submit recommendations and suggestions addressing such problems to the Commission or the Member State concerned;
(c) conduct any other activities necessary to fulfil their functions.
- RACs will also be consulted on Commission or Member State proposals for emergency measures on the conservation and management of fish stocks, or protection of the marine ecosystem from fishing activities.
The full text of the CFP framework Regulation can be found on the European Commission's website at:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_358/l_35820021231en00590080.pdf
Why do we need further Community legislation?
In the light of discussions with Member States and stakeholder groups the Commission has made the present proposal for a Council Decision to provide the framework for the establishment of RACs in line with the principles set out in the CFP Regulation 2371/2002.
As well as adhering to the principles set out in the CFP framework Regulation, it is crucial that RACs are effective; flexible enough to adapt and evolve; are open and transparent; and above all, accountable to their stakeholders.
It is important that the Council Decision under consideration here is able to set RACs off on the right track. It needs to both ensure that RACs operate according to an agreed set of principles, and be flexible enough to enable stakeholders to lead the development of an RAC in a way that is appropriate to local conditions.
2. Issues for consideration in the draft Decision
We would like to hear your views on the draft Decision, including on any or all of the issues below. Your responses will usefully add to the discussions held to date, and will inform the Government response to the Commission's proposal, as well as the way in which we promote the development of RACs.
General points
In the CFP framework Regulation it is clear that RACs have certain implied rights and duties, as well as broad objectives and mode of operation. The Commission and the Member States to whom RACs make their recommendations also have an implied duty to properly consider and respond to those recommendations. Are these adequately stated in the proposed Council Decision?
Article 1: Definitions
Do these definitions sufficiently capture the relevant interest groups?
Article 2: Establishment of Regional Advisory Councils
The preamble of the draft Decision refers to defining criteria which are both biological and administrative. Are the areas proposed here and in Annex I of the draft Decision workable, bearing in mind the fact that there is no requirement to have all Community waters covered from the outset?
Article 3: Procedure
Should proposals for an RAC contain other information than listed here, (such as other planned sources of funding)?
Is this procedure for evaluation of proposals satisfactory?
Article 4: Structure
Should this be the model followed by every RAC? Is the model sufficiently flexible? It is envisaged that the analytical work of the RAC would be carried out by ad-hoc or permanent working groups who could draw on the wider members and advisers as required: should this be stated here, or left to the individual RACs?
Article 5: Membership
Does this ensure correct and fair representation of the various interest groups? Are the proportions outlined appropriate?
Article 6: Participation
This describes who may attend meetings of RACs in addition to the members defined in Article 5.
Should RACs be free to choose who they invite as advisers?
Do you agree with the role of national and regional administrations set out in this Article?
Who should be able to attend the meetings of an RAC, and in what capacity? Should they be open to the public?
Article 7: Functioning
How should RACs arrive at opinions or decisions about their work programmes?
Does this Article allow differing views to be fairly represented in an RAC's policy?
Time limits for Commission consultation of RACs may be very short (possibly 15 days). How should RACs address this issue: via empowering the executive committee, or through the office of the chairperson?
By what means should the members of the executive committee and the chairperson be selected and held to account?
What kind of support is appropriate for Member States to give?
Article 8: Co-ordination between Regional Advisory Councils
Should co-ordination with other organisations be provided for?
Article 9: Financing
To ensure full ownership of RACs by those who run them, they should ultimately be self financing. How could this be achieved?
Is the level of Community financing identified in Annex II sufficient and/or appropriate?
Do these arrangements allow sufficient flexibility in the financing of RACs?
What costs should participants (or their organisations) meet themselves? What contribution could your organisation make?
Article 10: Annual Report and Audit
Compared with the systems within your own organisation, does this contain the right provisions to ensure that RACs operate transparently and can be held to account by their wider membership and other interested parties? If not, how could it be improved?
Article 11: Review
Is the timing of the review satisfactory? Are there specific review criteria which should be mentioned?