The impartiality/neutrality of the RAC Chairmen needs to be improved, along with the structural balance between the industry and NGOs, WWF points out in a recent report on the functionings of the European Union’s seven Regional Advisory Councils.
Heading towards a new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 2012, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) decided to take a closer look at how well the RACs are functioning – with reference to the CFP, the RACs’ own statutes – as well as the legislation and rules for comparable advisory bodies in other leading fishing nations (US & Australia).
These are some of the main findings and recommendations:
- At present, many NGO members have problems due to documents being sent out at short notice, which means the members cannot prepare adequately. Many RACs lack rules about this, and WWF suggests that agendas and related documents should be circulated at least two weeks prior to meetings.
- All minutes should contain the name of each voting member present during each vote, and how each member voted on each topic. Such is the case in the US Regional Fishery Management Councils.
- Conflicts of interest should be disclosed, like in both the US and in Australia.
- There should be a formal possibility within the RACs to publicly abstain from voting, and have this abstention added to the recommendation. This is not the case today.
- On the impartiality and neutrality of the RAC Chairmen: In the Australian Management Advisory Committees (MACs), the chairman is assumed to be independent of commercial or other interests associated with the fisheries. The EU should follow that example.
- Better balance between the sector and other interest groups is called for. Today’s representation structure is based on the 2/3 principle (two thirds for the sector, one third for others).
- Aquaculture producers should be removed from the “others” group and representation for fisherwomen’s network should be included on the sector side in all RACs.
- The RACs need more representation by national administration and fisheries officials, and more thought needs to be given to external connectivity of RACs. In the Australian system, government representatives contribute to the expertise during MACs deliberation and advice the MACs of any implications that their recommendations may have for State operators and fisheries.
- All RACs may invite scientists to participate in their meetings, but generally scientific input needs to be improved.
- All RACs are committed to have transparent activities, but inconsistencies need to be addressed, and statutes harmonised. All recommendations should be available to the public, and all votes should be open.
- Training should be made mandatory for all RAC members (fishery science and basic stock assessment methods, fishery economics, fish harvesting techniques, etc). Such is the case in both the US and in Australia.
- Financial aid from the Commission should be improved: particularly the NGO side now sometimes lacks the resources to attend or fully prepare for RAC meetings. Better funding may also enable better access to science.
- By en large, RACs should prioritise long-term issues and spend less time on issues like annual TACs and quota negotiations. Primarily, RACs should be involved in considerations of long term management plans for regional advice.