Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Council Decision establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy’ (COM(2003) 607 final - 2003/0238 (CNS))
Date: 2004-02-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), common fisheries policy, political representation, region dependent on fishing, social dialogue (EU), union representative

C 110/108

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Council Decision
establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy’

(COM(2003) 607 final - 2003/0238 (CNS))

(2004/C 110/18)

On 16 December 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal

On 27 January 2004, the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Agriculture, Rural Development
and the Environment to prepare this opinion.

In view of the urgency of the matter, at its 406th plenary session held on 25 and 26 February 2004
(meeting of 26 February 2004), the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Manuel
Chagas as rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion by 76 votes to two.

1. The Commission proposal

1.1
Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 provided for
the establishment of Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) as a
way of stepping up dialogue in the Community's fisheries
sector by involving stakeholders more in the Common Fisheries
Policy decision-making process.

specific measures associated with this. Typically, businesses in
the Community's fisheries sector are small and there is a little
involvement in associations; it is therefore vital to ensure that
stakeholders are involved in all stages of the decision-making
process, so that (i) they grasp the need for the measures to be
taken and (ii) these measures are better geared not only to the
level of resources available, but also to the socio-economic
circumstances of the communities concerned.

The Commission's proposal aims to promote a consis-
1.2
tent, balanced approach, laying down aspects common to all of
the RACs to be set up, as regards their establishment, member-
ship, structure, functioning and financing.

1.3
The Commission proposes setting up six RACs, covering
five shipping areas – the Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea, North
Sea, North Western waters and South Western waters - and the
pelagic stocks.

1.4
RACs will be set up at the initiative of fishermen and
other stakeholders who, to do so, will have to apply to the
Member States concerned and the Commission. Each RAC will
have a general assembly which will appoint an executive
committee of between 12 and 18 members. In both bodies,
two thirds of the members will represent the fisheries sector
and the remainder will represent other interest groups affected
by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Observers such as scien-
tists, representatives from Member States not covered by the
RAC in question and those from third countries that have a
fishing interest in the area, may also be invited to attend meet-
ings, as may be representatives of the Advisory Committee on
Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA). Representatives of national
administrations may also attend as observers.

1.5
The Commission will, moreover, secure initial start-up
funding for RACs and their first three years of operation, in
addition to covering the cost of interpreting at meetings and
document translation.

2. General comments

In its Green Paper on The Future of the Common Fish-
2.2
eries Policy (1),
the Commission already acknowledged the
importance of providing for new ways of
involving stake-
holders in the pre-decision phase of CFP policy-making. At that
time, the Committee expressed its satisfaction at the Commis-
sion's intention ‘to involve interested parties more closely in
the debate and to let the sector share the responsibility for deci-
sion-making and management at local level’. (2)

Likewise, in its opinion on the Commission Communi-
2.3
cation on the Reform of
the Common Fisheries Policy
(‘Roadmap’) (3), the EESC expressed its support for the creation
of the RACs, nonetheless pointing out the need to ensure that
this move did not undermine the maintenance of a common
fisheries policy by shifting discussions to regional level, which
would distort the policy's key principles. It is therefore impor-
tant that a representative of the ACFA may attend RAC meet-
ings as an observer (Article 6(4)), and that each RAC must
submit an annual report on its activities to the Commission,
Member States and the ACFA (Article 10).

interests of

the various

The need to ensure that RAC members are sufficiently
2.4
representative of
each country
concerned will necessarily require the involvement of a large
number of organisations. However,
is the
Member States who appoint the members of the general assem-
blies could lead to problems and disputes as to how representa-
tive the appointees actually are. Given that
it has been
proposed that the general assemblies meet once a year, provi-
sion should be made for as extensive participation as possible,
involving all the recognised representative organisations with
interests in the RAC in question.

the fact

that

it

2.1
The EESC has constantly reiterated the need to involve
the main stakeholders – ship owners and workers – in defining
and implementing Community fisheries policies and the

(1) COM(2001) 135
(2) EESC 1315/01 - OJ C 36 of 8.2.2002.
(3) EESC 1369/02 - OJ C 85 of 8.4.2003.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/109

The EESC supports the proposal

2.5
in Article 5(2) that
European and national organisations may propose members to
the Member States concerned. It will nevertheless be necessary
to ensure that both national and European organisations are
informed quickly of any moves to set up an RAC. It would be
worthwhile to involve the ACFA more in this process, in par-
ticular to call on European organisations to nominate their
representatives and to centralise and manage the responses.

it

Given that

is up to the executive committee to
2.6
manage the RAC's activities and adopt its recommendations
and suggestions, the EESC does not feel that the Commission's
proposal, as it stands, guarantees legitimate representation of
all the parties concerned. In fact, by only requiring the partici-
pation of at least one representative of the catching sector from
each Member State concerned, there is a risk that workers'
representatives will be systematically left out.

2.6.1
Recently there have been a number of cases where
trade union representatives have not been included amongst
the representatives appointed by Member States to meetings on
CFP issues. In advocating the involvement of those working in
the sector, the EESC believes that ship owners and employed
fishermen should also be included, since it is the latter who will
really put into practice the measures adopted. The EESC thus
recommends that the regulation explicitly set out the need to
secure the participation of both ship owners and employed
fishermen.

On the other hand, the share of the seats allocated to
2.7
‘other interest groups’ – one third of all the seats - also seems
too large. Since there is no doubt that these groups' participa-
tion on the RACs must be secured due to the fact that their
contribution will necessarily reflect different viewpoints, the
RAC's opinions will essentially be the fruit of attempts to
reconcile the different national interests at stake. It would be
more appropriate for this group to be allocated a 20 % share of
the seats on both the general assembly and the executive
committee.

2.8
Although Article 32 of Regulation 2371/2002 stipulates
that the RACs will ‘cover sea areas falling under the jurisdiction
of at least two Member States’, the EESC suggests that consid-
eration be given to setting up a seventh RAC which could, in
view of the size of the Community fleet fishing in waters
outside Community waters, bring together
those parties
involved in fishing in these areas, under an RAC entitled
‘External fishing regions’. Furthermore, the EESC considers it
crucial
and
employed fishermen from the non-Member States concerned
also be included in the RACs.

representing ship owners

that organisations

3. Specific comments

3.1 Article 2 - Establishment of Regional Advisory Councils

3.1.1
As suggested above, an additional paragraph g) should
be inserted to propose a seventh RAC, entitled ‘External fishing
regions’.

3.2 Article 4 – Structure

3.2.1
The necessarily small number of members on the
executive committee should restrict the powers of this body. In
particular, the EESC feels that the recommendations and propo-
sals made by the RAC should always go through the general
assembly.

3.2.2
Unlike some of the other language versions, the Portu-
guese version sometimes refers to a regional assembly and
sometimes to a general assembly. It seems that the latter is the
correct term and the text should be amended accordingly.

3.3 Article 5 – Members

Appointment of RAC members should be coordinated
3.3.1
by the ACFA in conjunction with its constituent European
organisations.

The proportion of representatives from the fisheries
3.3.2
sector should be reviewed along the lines set out in point 2.7
above.

Provision should be made to ensure that at least one
3.3.3
employed fisherman from each Member State sits on the execu-
tive committee.

3.3.4
The Portuguese and the English versions (inter alia) of
‘Members of the general assembly shall be
paragraph 2 read:
appointed by common agreement between the Member States
concerned.’ However the French version employs the term ‘by’
instead of ‘between’, which would seem more appropriate: ‘Les
membres de l'assemblée générale sont nommés d'un commun
accord par les États membres concernés.’ In fact there seems to
be no grounds for the names put forward by one Member State
to be decided on by other Member States.

3.4 Article 6 – Participation

3.4.1
not the right to vote.

Observers should be given the right to speak, although

3.4.2
It should be optional as to whether the meetings
should be open to the public; the decision on this should be up
to the body in question.

3.5 Article 7 – Functioning

3.5.1
Although the EESC agrees that the chairperson should
be designated by consensus, it feels that it is worth establishing
that he or she should come from the catching sector.

3.6 Article 9 – Financing

3.6.1
RAC could fit
Commission will have to clarify this concept.

It is not clear how a trans-national body such as an
into the mould of a legal personality. The

The EESC supports the Commission's intention to help
3.6.2
through annual
finance interpreting and translation costs
‘agreements’. Indeed, it is only by ensuring that all participants
can speak in their own language and that all documents are
translated into the languages used in good time, that the RAC's
members will be able to participate on an equal footing with
one another.

C 110/110

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

4. Conclusions

4.1
The EESC notes the Commission's present proposal
which aims to promote a consistent, balanced approach, laying
down aspects common to all of the RACs to be set up, as
regards their establishment, membership, structure, functioning
and financing.

up involvement of the ACFA and the European organisations
represented therein, when RAC members are appointed.

4.3
The EESC also considers the relative size of the represen-
tation allocated to ‘other interest groups’ to be inappropriate,
and proposes that this be brought down to 20 % of the total
number of seats.

4.2
The EESC nonetheless feels that the proposal does not
ensure adequate representation on the RACs of the main opera-
tors in the Community catching sector, namely ship owners
and employed fishermen. This could be achieved by stepping

4.4
It also recommends that an RAC entitled ‘External
fishing regions’ be set up, bringing together those parties
involved in fishing in non-Community waters; this concerns a
large part of the EU's fishing fleet.

Brussels, 26 February 2004

The President

of the European Economic and Social
Committee

Roger BRIESCH