Regional Advisory Councils
Proposal for a Council Decision establishing RACs under the Common Fisheries Policy
Summary of responses to Scottish Executive consultation
May 2004
This document is also available in pdf format (32k)
Introduction
1. This paper reports on the public consultation undertaken by the Scottish Executive 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. Scottish The Consultation paper explained the background to the proposals and highlighted a series of key questions to consider. Consultation on the proposed Council Decision began on 14 th November 2003. The consultation documents were placed on the Scottish Executive website.
2. The Executive received a total of 23 responses. A list of respondents is attached at Annex A and Annex B notes all of those who received a written invitation to comment. All the responses have been placed in the Scottish Executive Library at Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, EH11 6XD. 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. The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) would like to thank all those who responded to this consultation for their helpful and constructive comments.
background to the consultation
The purpose of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs).
3. The establishment of RACs under the reformed Common Fisheries Policy is intended to increase the participation of those affected by the CFP in the fisheries management decision-making process. 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.
4. Community legislation in the form of Regulation 2371/2002 and the 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.
5. 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.
6. The text of the CFP framework Regulation can be found on the European Commission website at: http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_358/l_35820021231en00590080.pdf
7. The proposed Council Decision is a piece of EU legislation, to be developed through discussion between the European Commission and all EU Member States. The purpose of the consultation was therefore to help inform the Scottish Executive's contribution to these negotiations.
Summary OF Consultation Responses
General comments
The majority of respondents supported the establishment of RACs with most welcoming the opportunity for there to be an increased role for stakeholders in fisheries policy and viewing them as a welcome step towards the potential future regional management of fisheries. Some respondents also commented on the role RACs could play as a mechanism to apply an ecosystem approach to the management of fisheries.
Two respondents viewed the proposals as expensive and unnecessary with one stating that they were unworkable. Another respondent felt that the proposed RACs would have no authority to see that their conclusions were acted upon and suggested that a European Advisory Committee for fisheries which fairly represented RACs was necessary for them to have any influence.
Article 1: Definitions
The consultation paper asked whether the definitions used in the draft Council Decision to describe the types of bodies that should be members of the RACs sufficiently captured the relevant interest groups?
Two respondents were concerned that scientists were to be excluded from formal membership of RACs with one suggesting that the proposals were a missed opportunity to increase the extent to which scientists (especially ICES) and the fishing industry work together. One of these felt that aquaculture and recreational fisheries should be moved from ' other interest groups' to the ' fisheries sector' to better balance the allocations.
Two respondents believed that women's networks would be better placed under ' other interests'. Another expressed confusion as to what this group actually consists of and questioned why it was to be included at all.
One respondent suggested that national and regional administrations should be included in ' other interest groups' while another thought that the Local Authorities of coastal and fisheries dependent communities should be included.
One respondent thought there was a need to clarify the distinction between ' Fisheries Sector' and ' Catching Sector'.
One respondent felt that the reference to environmental organisations is weak and unclear and does not outline the distinction between ecological knowledge and environmental interests which could lead to confusion on the precise nature of environmental interests role in RACs.
One respondent was unsatisfied that neither the aquaculture sector nor the recreational sector was listed under 'fisheries sector'.
Article 2: Establishment of Regional Advisory Councils
The consultation paper invited comments on the proposed areas for which each RAC would be responsible.
A number of respondents were concerned about the size of the areas. Three respondents commented that too few and too large RACs are proposed and that this will prevent effective representation of local interests. They suggested that there should be an option to allow subsequent changes to the number of RACs in future. Another respondent agreed that additional RACs could be identified in future and there was a suggestion by another that there will be a need for RACs to evolve and refine. Four respondents who specifically agreed with the proposal thought that the large nature of the RACs meant that they may need to consider sub-units (e.g. Irish Sea). One respondent specifically welcomed the separate pelagic RAC.
One respondent thought that there was a need to ensure deep sea stocks are adequately covered by RACs, suggesting that if there would be no dedicated Deep Sea RAC there would have to be co-ordination between RACs and NEAFC. Two other respondents also believed that there may be a case for a deep sea RAC. One of these thought that at the very least Western Waters RACs would need to address this issue adequately. No other respondents mentioned deep sea stocks.
Two respondents thought that ICES Area VI should have its own separate RAC. No other respondents expressed a view on this matter. One respondent thought that ICES Area VIIe should be included in the North Western Waters RAC. Again no other respondents expressed a view on this matter. One respondent commented that common membership between RACs would help tackle boundary issues.
One respondent felt that the boundaries suggested in the draft did not appear to reflect biological criteria despite specific reference to this in the explanatory memorandum to the legislation. It recommended consideration of the OSPAR biogeographical regions to inform this.
Article 3: Procedure
The consultation paper asked whether proposals for RAC procedures should contain other information than that listed in the draft Decision (such as other planned sources of funding) and whether the described procedures for the evaluation of proposals for RACs were satisfactory.
On the issue of funding, eleven of the twenty-two respondents agreed that other planned sources of funding should be included in the procedures and many of those wanted a clear indication of future funding. It was felt by two of these respondents that the requirement for a 'budget estimate' was completely insufficient and that a management or business plan should be made a specific requirement of an RAC proposal. In particular this should outline how the RAC will manage the transition from the start up period to the point of self-sufficiency in funding. One other respondent expressed confusion as to how this transition period would operate.
One respondent felt that there should be a common statement of objectives for all RACs to ensure that common goals are set and to prevent conflicts of interest caused by differing objectives.
According to one group the proposals should contain more detailed information to ensure that the necessary operational procedures are in place before the RACs are established. Proposed membership should be included in the procedure, according to another, and there should be a requirement that all partners are involved in the process from an early stage. The provision of a timescale within which a decision has to be notified was another recommendation.
To ensure that all legitimate interests in an RAC are represented one organisation suggested that the proposals for the establishment of an RAC are advertised and published for public consultation before a decision is made.
Eight of the respondents made no mention of Article 3.
Article 4: Structure
The consultation paper asked whether the structure proposed should be the model followed by every RAC and whether the model was sufficiently flexible. The paper also asked whether the Council Decision should include specific reference to RACs establishing working groups and sub-groups.
Most respondents felt that the Structure as set out in Article 4 was generally satisfactory as a guide but that flexibility would be crucial. Four respondents explicitly stated that the model was not flexible whilst six stated that the provision on the numbers of Executive Committee members was inflexible. Only one of the respondents who commented thought the model should be used by every RAC.
The proposed size of the RAC Executive Committees was a concern for six respondents. Two stated that a minimum of 15 members would be needed to ensure all interest groups are covered. One of these groups expressed concern that a small Executive Committee might be dominated by certain interests. This opinion was shared by another group. Two other respondents suggested an executive committee of 24 and one of these proposed a maximum of 30. One group thought that the number of Executive committee members would not be sufficient for a Small Pelagic RAC.
Of the eight respondents who commented on the reference to establishing working groups, six believed that it was necessary whilst two felt that it should be left to the RACs.
Article 5: Membership
Consultees were asked whether the membership provisions would ensure correct and fair representation of the various interest groups and whether the proportions outlined were appropriate?
There was general agreement on the proposed membership of the RACs with most respondents supporting the allocation of seats on the General Assembly and Executive Committee.
Nineteen respondents expressed support for the allocation of two thirds of the seats on the Executive Committee and General Assembly of the RACs to the fisheries sector.
One respondent expressed the view that 2/3 rds would be too large an allocation in favour of the fisheries sector. Another suggested that such a balance may lead to recommendations emphasising the short term and economic interests.
Two respondents thought that Local Authorities should be regarded as important stakeholders because they help fishing communities adapt to change. They suggested that there should be at least one Local Authority on the Executive Committees.
Two groups commented that there may be problems in applying a common structure and membership requirements to the small pelagics RAC, which might be required to represent stakeholders from a particularly large number of interested Member States meaning that those with larger quotas and /or fleets may not be suitably represented.
One respondent who supported the split wanted membership by fisheries sector of each Member State clarified (i.e. on a one to one basis or on basis of quota allocation). They also wanted clarification of how environmental NGOs will be selected. Another respondent thought there was a need to clarify statutory environmental agencies' input. One other organisation which supported the split stressed that the processor and marketing sectors need to be adequately represented.
Article 6: Participation
The paper asked whether RACs should be free to choose who they invite as advisers, whether consultees agreed with the envisaged observer role of national and regional administrations, and who should be able to attend the meetings of an RAC, and in what capacity. The paper also sought views on whether meeting should be open to the public.
Nine of the ten respondents who commented believed that RACs should be free to choose who they invite as advisors. The other respondent who commented believed that it was generally acceptable but only if a mechanism was in place which would ensure that a fair cross-section of advice was given. Otherwise there would be a risk of RACs choosing scientists who reflect their own views.
Only four groups commented on the role of national and regional administrations. One respondent explicitly agreed with the role. Two disagreed on the basis that there was not enough involvement of regional authorities and that they should provide input to the recommendation making process. One respondent stated that Local authorities should be included.
Seven respondents stated that they agreed with meetings being open to the public whilst six agreed they should be open to the public but not always. The following reasons were given by these respondents for not opening meetings to the public:
Not practicable or desirable;
General Assembly meetings only;
Should reserve the right to hold private meetings for valid reasons
Two respondents were opposed to holding meetings in public. One stated that attendance at meetings should be by invitation only with members of the public welcome to apply for invitation.
Article 7: Functioning
The paper sought views on how RACs should arrive at opinions or decisions about their work programmes and whether the proposed provisions would allow differing views to be fairly represented in a RAC's policy. It also asked how RACs should deal with requests that carry short deadline, for example by empowering the Executive Committee to take quick decisions or through the office of the chairperson. The paper sought comments on the means by which members of the Executive Committee and the chairperson should be selected and held to account and what kind of support would be appropriate for Member States to give.
Of the respondents who commented three believed that decisions should be made by consensus and three believed that they should be made by majority voting. One other respondent believed the RAC should decide the method by which decisions or opinions should be made.
Seven of the respondents who commented believed that the Executive Committee should hold the decision making power when decisions were to be made in a short period of time although one expressed a desire that there should be opportunities for the full general assembly to consider major issues before any decisions were made. No respondents believed the Chairperson should make these decisions. Four respondents questioned why some consultations sent to RACs would have a time limit of 15 days and they felt that this was restrictive to the decision making process.
Only five respondents commented on the selection of the Executive Committee and Chairperson. One believed that they should both be elected by the General Assembly. Another suggested that the Executive Committee members should be nominated by the stakeholders and then should appoint a chairperson. The nomination of the chairperson by the Executive Committee was supported by another respondent. One of these respondents, highlighting the difficulty which may be faced in appointing a suitable chair, suggested that there should be provision for a rotating chair and venue on a permanent basis or until a suitable chair is proven. Two others stressed that the chairperson should be neutral.
The following were suggested as appropriate forms of Member State support:
Financial support (four respondents)
Make up shortfall in first 3 years and support RACs beyond this start-up period
Administrative support (one respondent)
Facilities for meetings and secretarial support (one respondent)
One respondent suggested that the support to be provided by member states should be specified when RACs are established.
Article 8: Co-ordination between Regional Advisory Councils
The paper asked whether there should be specific provision for co-ordination with other organisations.
Most respondents stated a belief that co-ordination between RACs was important and should be provided for. Two respondents believed that there should be frequent meetings between adjoining RACs with another stating that funding should be earmarked to facilitate this. One respondent felt that the proposals for co-ordination needed strengthening and it was also suggested that RACs should have a requirement to undertake ' ongoing joint work' rather than ' co-ordinate their positions'.
One respondent suggested that RACs should liaise with NEAFC, NASCO and inshore managers. In the case of deep sea stocks one respondent agreed that it was important for RACS to co-ordinate with NEAFC. ACFA was another organisation with whom co-ordination was recommended. One respondent believed that there was a need to liaise with inshore fisheries management groups and upstream/downstream industries. One respondent thought common membership of offshore and inshore groups would help tackle stocks that cross inshore boundaries.
Article 9: Financing
The paper asked for views on how RACs might best become self-financing, on the level of proposed Community financing, on whether these arrangements would allow sufficient flexibility in the financing of RACs, and on what costs participants (or their organisations) should meet themselves. Consultees were invited to suggest what sort of contribution their own organisation could make.
With regard to RACs becoming self financing, many respondents believed that this would prove difficult. Three respondents stated that the RACs must satisfy industry of their progress to have any chance of self-financing. One respondent suggested a business plan to outline how the RAC will move towards self financing, indicating member contributions including membership fees. Another respondent disagreed with funding being linked to membership and suggested funds being raised through charges levied on the basis of landings, quotas or licences.
Although a number of respondents were generally favourable towards the provisions for Community funding many respondents expressed concern that the finance available to RACs would be restrictive. Eight of those respondents who commented stated that the proposed commission funding was in one way or another inadequate. Four expressed a belief that funding will have to be ongoing. Two respondents stated that additional financial aid from Member States would be required at least in the initial stages. Two respondents calculated that the funding required to operate a North Sea RAC would be between €300,000 and €350,000 per year for the first three years. One of these also suggested that the term of the start-up aid should be 4-5 and not 3 years. This was supported by two others. Another respondent stated that the finance would be too limited considering the role of RACs. One respondent stressed the importance of providing translation and interpretation costs.
Two respondents were concerned that a lack of resources could affect certain members' ability to actively participate. One respondent suggested that some operators [ sic] should be exempt from charges and that help should be given to assist public participation.
Respondents who commented on their ability to contribute to the costs of RACs listed the following:
Two respondents expressed concern about the legal personality of RACs. One of these thought it would be a problem for the co-operating organisations to acquire a legal personality of its own to allow it to receive funding. They proposed a secretariat of the RAC which is already a legally established body.
Article 10: Annual Report and Audit
Consultees were asked whether the proposed provisions for reporting and audit would ensure that RACs will operate transparently and can be held to account by their wider membership and other interested parties.
Most respondents who commented agreed with the provisions of Article 10 on Annual Report and Audit.
One respondent suggested that a third of the RAC members should seek re-election annually to allow other bodies the opportunity to be elected.
Article 11: Review
The paper asked whether the timing of the review was satisfactory and whether any specific review criteria should be mentioned.
Nine of the eleven respondents who commented on the review found it satisfactory. Of these, one respondent believed that three years should be the maximum period and another believed it should not be repeated after the three years.
Two respondents disagreed with the three year review. One believed this timescale was too short, suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect major achievements in 3 years, while the other commented that there should be an annual review to support an annual bid for increased Community funding.
Scottish Executive Environmental and Rural Affairs Department
May 2004
ANNEX A: LIST OF CONSULTATION RESPONDENTS
Aberdeen Fish Producer's Organisation
Aberdeenshire Council
Clyde Fishermen's Association
Fife Council
Fishermen's Association Limited
Fishing SOS
Institute for European Environmental Policy
Marine Conservation Society
Moray Council
North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership
North Sea Commission's Fisheries Partnership
Orkney Fishermen's Association
RSPB Scotland
Scottish Fishermen's Federation
Scottish Food and Drink Federation
Scottish Liberal Democrat Party
Scottish Natural Heritage
Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association
Seafish Industry Authority
Shetland Ocean's Alliance
The Highland Council
West of Four Fisheries Group
ANNEX B: ORGANISATIONS THAT RECEIVED A WRITTEN INVITATION TO COMMENT
Aberdeen Fish Curers & Merchants Association Ltd. (AFCAMA)
Aberdeen Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd
Aberdeen Fish Salesmens's Association Ltd.
Aberdeen Harbour Board
Aberdeen Inshore Fishselling Co Ltd.
Aberdeenshire Council
Anglo - Scottish Fish Producers' Organisation
Anglo - Scottish Fishermens' Association
Anglo - Scottish Shellfishermen's Association
Angus Council
Annan Fishermen's Association
Arbroath Fish Buyers' Association
Arbroath Fish Processors Association
Arbroath Fishermen's Association Ltd
Argyll and Bute Council
Associated British Ports
Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland
Association of British Salted Fish Curers & Exporters Ltd
Avoch Fishermen's Co-operative Ltd.
Ayr Wholesale Fish Buyer's Association
Barra Community Co-operative Ltd
Berneray (North Uist) Fishermen Ltd
Buckie District Fishery Office
Caley Fisheries (Peterhead)
Carradale Fishermen Ltd.
Clackmannanshire Council
Clyde and South West Static Gear Association
Clyde Estuary Forum
Clyde Fishermen's Association
Cockenzie & Port Seton Fishermen's Association
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar (formerly Western Isles Council)
COSLA
Crab Processors Association
Croan Seafoods Ltd.
Crown Estate Office
DEFRA
Dumfries and Galloway Council
Dundee City Council
East Ayrshire Council
East Coast Licensed Small Boats Association
East Dunbartonshire Council
East Lothian Council
East Neuk Initiative
East Renfrewshire Council
Edinburgh City Council
Eyemouth Fish Merchants Association
Falkirk Council
Federation of Highlands & Islands Fishermen
Fife Council
Fife Creel Fishermen's Association
Fife Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd
Fife Fishermen's Association
Firth of Clyde Forum
Fishermens' Association Ltd. FAL
Fishermen's Fishselling
Fishermen's Mutual Association (Eyemouth) Ltd
Fishing SOS
Fishsalesmen's Association (Scotland) Ltd c/o Messers Clarke and Wallace
Forth Estuary Forum
Fraserburgh District Fishery Office
Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners
Fraserburgh Inshore Fishermen Ltd.
Fraserburgh Trawlers
Fresh Catch Peterhead
FRS Marine Laboratory
Glasgow City Council
Glen Isla Seafoods Ltd.
Grampian Sea Fishing Ltd
Grampian Seafoods
Herring Buyers' Association
Highland Council
Highland Shellfish Management Organisation
Highlands and Islands Enterprise
Highlands and Islands Fishermen's Association
Institute of European Environmental Polict (IEEP)
Inter -Quo Ltd
Inverclyde Council
Kinlochbervie Fishselling Co.Ltd.
Lerwick Port Authority
Live Shellfish Traders Association
Macduff Shipyards Ltd
Mallaig & North-West Fishermen's Association
Mallaig Harbour Authority
Marine Conservation Society
Midlothian Council
Moray Council
Moray Firth Fish Processors and Merchants' Association Ltd
Moray Firth Partnership (SNH)
Moray Seafoods Ltd
Mull Fishermens' Association
North Atlantic Fisheries College
North Atlantic Fishing Council
North Ayrshire Council
North East of Scotland Fishermen's Organisation Ltd
North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership
Oban Port Association, Caley Fisheries Ltd
Orkney Fisheries Association
Orkney Fishermens' Society Ltd.
Orkney Inshore Shellfisheries Management Association
Orkney Islands Council
Orkney Islands Sea Angling Association
Perth and Kinross Council
Peterhead Fishermen Ltd.
Peterhead Harbour Trustees
Portree District Fishery Office
Renfrewshire Council
Ross of Mull and Iona Fishermen's Association
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
Scallop Association
Scotprime Seafoods Ltd
Scottish Anglers National Association
Scottish Association of Community Councils
Scottish Association of Fish Producers' Organisations Ltd
Scottish Borders Council
Scottish Environment LINK Marine Task Force
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
Scottish Environmental Forum
Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers
Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency
Scottish Fishermens' Federation
Scottish Fishermen's Organisation Ltd.
Scottish Fishing Services Association
Scottish Food and Drink Federation
Scottish Liberal Democrats
Scottish Natural Heritage
Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association
Scottish Scallop Fishermen's Association
Scottish Seafood Processor's Federation
Scottish Shellfish Marketing Group Ltd.
Scottish White Fish Producers' Association c/o MacRae & Stephen
Scottish Wildlife Trust
Sea Fish Industry Authority (Scotland)
Seafish
Seafood Scotland
Seafood Shetland
Shetland Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd
Shetland Fish Salesmen's Association Ltd.
Shetland Fishermen's Association
Shetland Islands Council
Shetland Oceans Alliance
Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation
Shetland Shellfishermen's Association
Skye and Lochalsh Fishermen's Association
South Ayrshire District Council
Stirling Council
Stornoway Fishermen's Co-operative Ltd.
Stornoway Pier & Harbour Commission
Tarbert-Argyll Fishermen Ltd.
Ten Metre and Under Association
Ullapool and Assynt Fishermen's Association
Ullapool Harbour Trustees
United Fish Products Ltd
United Fish Selling Ltd
West Coast Sea Products
West Dunbartonshire Council
West Lothian Council
West of Four Fisheries Management Group
West of Scotland Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd
Western Isle Enterprise
Western Isles Fishermen's Association
Westray Processors Ltd
Westside Fishermen Ltd.
Wick and Scrabster Fish Traders Association
Wigtown Fishermen's Association
WWF Scotland
All Fishery Offices