MiNa-Raad

1. MiNa-Raad Regional Advisory Councils for fisheries management and their relation to the Marine Strategy Dirk Uyttendaele Berlin, 15 October 2004

2. Why the MiNa-Raad? • MiNa-Raad = stakeholder forum • experience about stakeholder fora • a stakeholder forum WFD • new competence • little expertise about fisheries

3. Recent eventsabout RACs • 28 May 2002: “Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (“Roadmap”) (COM(2002) 181 fin) • ECom launched the idea of RACs • and a number of proposals to establish RACs • 20 December 2002: a triad of decisions from ECoun to reform CFP. • Art. 31 & 32 of Reg. 2371/2002 provide the establishment of RACs. • 15 October 2003: “Proposal for a Council decision establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2003) 607 fin). ECom • May 2004: Meeting ECoun → establishment of RACs on the agenda. • 19 July 2004: Council Decision of 19 July 2004 establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (2004/585/EC).

4. Rules of the game • Reg. (EG) no. 2371/2002 of the Council of 20 December 2002 (Art. 31 & 32) • the Council decision of 19 July 2004 establishing regional advisory councils.

5. remarks • 3 Juni 2003: Advisory opinion MiNa-Raad • before the ECom proposal for decision. • Some concerns were met in the proposal. • 6 February 2004: IEEP workshop (Institute for European Environmental Policy). • ‘Key conclusions'  the competent agencies.

6. Establishing RACs • to contribute to ensuring the exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides for sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. • to advise the Commission on matters of fisheries management in respect of certain sea areas or fishing zones.

7. Establishing RACs: remarks • potentially the most important shift in EU fisheries governance in the last two decades, but only if stakeholders feel that they work. • RACs must contribute to the objectives of CFP  the ecosystem approach  reflected in as many areas as possible, s.a. delimiting the scope, the composition, the tasks, etc.

8. Tasks(1) • RACs may be consulted • by the EC in respect of proposals for measures, s.a. multiannual recovery or management plans, and have specific relevance for fish stocks in the area. • by the EC and by the MS in respect of other measures.

9. Tasks (2) • The RACs may also • recommendations and suggestions, of their own initiative or at request on matters relating to fisheries management; • recommendations and suggestions and inform EC/MS about problems related to the implementation of Community rules; • conduct any other activities necessary to fulfil their functions.

10. Tasks- remarks • RACs should have at least a remit. There is no obligation for EC/MS to seek opinions from RACs. • Advice concerning non fisheries-matters is lacking.

11. Establishment • The Council decides on the establishment • sea areas under jurisdiction of at least 2 MS. • 7 RACs: the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean sea, the North sea, the North-western waters, the South-western waters, the Pelagic stocks, the high seas/long distance fleet.

12. Establishment– remarks (1) • Limiting the number of RACs  implications to identify suitable stakeholders. • sub-units corresponding to smaller fisheries and/or geographical areas. • a RAC for deep sea fisheries.

13. Establishment– remarks (2) The Commission’s role is • Critical in supporting the development, particularly in the areas where bottom-up initiatives may not naturally develop. • vital in ensuring RACs operate in a fair and balanced way.

14. Procedure • Representatives of the fisheries sector and other interest groups submit a request to the MS and to the ECom. • The MS determine whether the application is representative and in accordance with the provisions → by common agreement, a recommendation to the ECom. • ECom decision at the latest within 3 months.

15. Structure • a general assembly and an executive committee. • general assembly • appoints an executive committee (24 members). • meets at least 1/yr to approve the annual report and the annual strategic plan. • executive committee • manages the work of the RAC • adopt its recommendations.

16. Membership • Representatives from the fisheries sector and other interest groups affected by CFP; • European and national organisations may propose members to the MS; MS shall agree on the members of the general assembly; • 2/3 of the seats in the GA and executive committee allotted to the fisheries sector; • At least 1 representative of the catching subsector/MS in the executive committee.

17. Membership– remarks (1) • The composition of the different bodies of a RAC needs to strike a balance in the participation of all consumers in relation to each other. It should also been ensured that geographical, national and regional pattern of distribution are correctly represented.

18. Membership– remarks (2) • A clear distinction between official tasks (preparing and implementing policy), political decision-making and social consultation. Social consultation must be independent. • A ‘judge and party’-situation: not allowed  politicians/civil servants not acceptable as voting members.

19. Participation by non-members • Experts: • Scientists from institutes of the MS or international bodies. • May be invited: Any other qualified scientist. • Active observers: • The ECom and national and regional administrations of the MS. • A representative of ACFA. • May be invited: Representatives of the fisheries sector and other interest groups from third countries. • Open to the public: • Meetings of the general assembly; • Basically, the meetings of the executive committee unless …

20. Participation by non-members - remarks • 24 members in the executive committee → problems for representative representation → NGOs: more ‘representative’ role → the interest groups will have to organise participation on an internal basis. • MS should participate as observers. • Scientific input is necessary • to back up official proposals with scientific evidence • non-voting representation in the RAC to review the scientific accuracy of its suggestions. • Participation of the general public: no requirement to proactively disseminate information.

21. Functioning • RAC • Adopts measures necessary (secretariat, WG) • the executive committee • recommendations by consensus if possible • dissenting opinions in recommendations • within 3 months after receipt of the recommendations, the ECom/MS shall reply precisely.

22. Support by the Member States • MS shall provide the appropriate support to facilitate the functioning; • including logistical help.

23. Support by the Member States - remarks • The secretariat must operate independently of the political administrations, official government departments and target groups. • FUNDING = vital precondition for full and meaningful participation. • the financial support for the functioning of a RAC. • NGOs: Proper engagement will require investment of resources → which most NGOs cannot afford.

24. Review • 3 years following the date on which the last RAC becomes operational, or, at the latest by 30 June 2007, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Decision 2004/585 and the functioning of the RACs.

25. What happened since? • The official recommendation from the MS about the request to establish the North Sea RAC → ECom → examined → Basically, the first meeting of the General Assembly is planned for 4 November. • Discussions amongst stakeholders in view of the constitution of the other RACs → not finalised (South Western Waters RAC, Pelagic RAC, Baltic RAC, ). • The proposal for a North Western Waters RAC might be ready by the end of 2004 - beginning of 2005.

26. Relation with the Marine Strategy • Action 20 of the draft Marine Strategy: applying the model in other sectors of the marine environment. • EEAC WG Marine: Gap-analysis: welcomes RACs and the proposal to apply the model. • Hopes that RACs: • examples of the regionalising of decisions. • more environmentally sensitive decisions. • focussing on the implementation of an ecosystem approach. • Work more closely with existing environmental councils at the regional level.

27. Relation with the Marine Strategy • The WG hopes that the EC applying the model considers the suggestions that have already been made on RACs. • The WG also wonders itself what the relation is between RACs and eco-regions, a new concept emerging from the Marine strategy? • Do they cover the same areas? • What happens if they have competing/conflicting goals?