With increased regionalisation a possible element of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy in 2012, NGOs involved in the Regional Advisory Councils last week agreed that the US provides an interesting example of how EU regional structures can be developed further
Last week, a number of NGOs active in the different Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) met to discuss regionalisation, RACs and the upcoming reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The purpose was to start a broad debate about how to tackle the regional aspects of the CFP and the further role and development of the RACs. The Commission evaluation of the RACs (COM(2008)364) and the relationship between the RACs and Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) were also discussed.
Over the last few months, the Commission has highlighted that further regionalisation may be part of the reformed CFP, but no detailed plans are expected in the Green Paper that will be published in the end of April. One possibility to increase the regional element that will be suggested is to create a policy framework with clear objectives and targets and then give the Member States greater freedom to implement them by devising their own solutions, which would be subject to Community standards and control.
Whether this would be done together with RACs or through other forms of regional cooperation is an open issue. But RACs and integration with other EU policies such as the maritime policy (including the Marine Framework Strategy Directive) and marine spatial planning will no doubt be central parts of the continued discussions.
There are some complicating aspects of the CFP for this regional development, among them the fact that some Member States have sector interests in several different regions and that effective implementation of the Common Market Regulation requires a level of standardisation.
During the discussion, the group felt that the US example of how fisheries management can be more devolved to a regional level is very interesting. In addition, there has been a recent revision of the legislation there, building on years of experience and trying to rectify some of the problematic aspects. The US example was also highlighted at a recent Baltic 2020 workshop:Is regionalization needed to strengthen CFP implementation? held in Copenhagen on 12-13 March.
The possibility of creating a new body for regional management dealing with both ecosystem-conservation issues and fisheries management was another option discussed. Many liked the idea, but it was also felt that it may be too ambitious for any body to deal with all of the related issues. Indeed, in the US there is now an ongoing initiative to establish Ocean Management Committees that would work in parallell with their Regional Fisheries Managements Committees.
Whatever the route forward, it was felt that the subject of regionalisation deserves a broad and detailed discussion. It was agreed that it would be a good idea to organise a larger event open for all stakeholders in the early autumn, exploring the possibilities for a more regional approach to both marine conservation and fisheries management. This will be taken forward by the Fisheries Secretariat and the Pew Environment Group.