Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Review of the functioning of the Regional Advisory Councils
Date: 2008-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), common fisheries policy, institutional structure, operation of the Institutions

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.6.2008 
COM(2008) 364 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Review of the functioning of the Regional Advisory Councils 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Evaluation of the main elements of the general framework established by Council 
Decision 2004/585/EC, as amended by Council Decision 2007/409/EC .................... 4 

Geographical coverage................................................................................................. 4 

Structure, membership and operational procedures ..................................................... 4 

2.2.1.  Structure ....................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2.2.  Membership.................................................................................................................. 5 

2.2.3.  Composition of statutory bodies .................................................................................. 5 

2.2.4.  Operational procedures ................................................................................................ 6 

2.3. 

Participation by non-members ..................................................................................... 7 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

The input of RACs in the CFP decision-making process ............................................ 8 

General trends: an improved dialogue with and between stakeholders ....................... 8 

Follow-up of RAC advice ............................................................................................ 9 

Possible ways to improve the quality and timeliness of RAC advice.......................... 9 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 10 

ANNEX 1 – Operational RACs (01/01/2008) ......................................................................... 12 

ANNEX 2 – Statistics on RAC activity ................................................................................... 13 

EN 

2 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) were established to enable the Common Fisheries Policy 
(CFP) to benefit from the knowledge and experience of fishermen and other stakeholders and 
to take into account the diverse conditions throughout Community waters1. They contribute to 
the  achievement  of  CFP  objectives  by  providing  advice  to  the  Commission  and  to  Member 
States. 

Council  Decision  N°  2004/585/EC  of  19  July  2004  (''The  Decision'')  established  a  common 
framework  for  the  RACs,  including  their  number  (seven  in  total),  geographical  coverage, 
structure  and  composition,  as  well  as  certain  procedural  rules2.  RACs  are  stakeholder-led 
bodies which receive a Community grant to cover part of their operational costs. 

Article 11 of the Decision states that "three 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  this  Decision  and  the 
functioning of the RACs". 

In  the  event,  the  process  of  setting  up  the  RACs  took  more  than  three  years  and  is  not  yet 
completed.  By  30  June  2007,  six  of  the  seven  RACs  had  been  established,  although  two  of 
these  -  the  South  Western  Waters  RAC  and  the  Long-Distance  RAC  -  were  only  set  up  in 
spring  2007  (see  annex  1).  With  the  Mediterranean  RAC  not  yet  in  place,  the  evaluation 
report would therefore have covered only four RACs if it had been published in June 2007. 
The Commission therefore decided to delay the publication of this review by one year. 

Meanwhile,  following  a  first  evaluation  of  the  RACs'  potential  to  contribute  to  the 
development of the CFP, the Commission proposed an amendment to their financial regime, 
recognising that the RACs needed financial stability to pursue their advisory role within the 
CFP  effectively.  The  proposal  was  supported  by  Council  and  Parliament  and  entered  into 
force on 15 June 20073. 

This  report  presents  the  Commission's  analysis  and  evaluation  of  the  current  framework  for 
the functioning of the RACs4. It also deals with the RACs' input to the CFP, highlights current 
trends and proposes improvements to the consultation process. In line with Article 11 of the 
Decision,  the  Commission's  evaluation  does  not  examine  the  possible  development  of  the 
RACs’ role in the CFP governance system, as defined by Council Regulation No 2371/2002. 
This should be done in the context of the next CFP reform. 

1 

2 
3 
4 

Articles 31 and 32 of Council Regulation N° 2371/2002/EC of 20 December 2002 on the conservation 
and  sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries  resources  under  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  OJ  L  358, 
31.12.2002, p. 59-80 
OJ L 256, 03.08.2004, p. 17-22 
Council Decision N° 2007/409/EC of 11 June 2007, OJ L 155, 15.06.2007, p. 68-70 
The Commission's evaluation is based on its own experience with the functioning of the RACs and on 
the results of a questionnaire which was submitted to the Member States and the RACs in December 
2006. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

EVALUATION  OF  THE  MAIN  ELEMENTS  OF  THE  GENERAL  FRAMEWORK 
ESTABLISHED  BY  COUNCIL  DECISION  2004/585/EC  AS  AMENDED  BY  COUNCIL 
DECISION 2007/409/EC 

2.1. 

Geographical coverage 

The Commission's view is that, overall, the current geographical coverage is satisfactory and 
that  there  is  no  need  for  additional  RACs  to  be  set  up.  RACs  should  make  full  use  of  the 
possibility of establishing sub-divisions to deal with specific issues, especially for those that 
cover very wide areas. 

A  number  of  specific  questions  in  relation  to  the  RACs’  geographical  coverage  have  been 
brought  to  the  Commission's  attention,  which  could  be  discussed  further  with  the  other 
Institutions and stakeholders. 

(1) 

It  has  been  highlighted  that  ICES  area  IV  (West  of  Scotland)  has  more  in  common 
with the North Sea, from both a biological and a socio-economic angle. 

(2)  With  regard  to  the  Pelagic  RAC,  the  Council  Decision  limits  its  competence  to  four 
specific stocks in all areas except the Baltic and Mediterranean. The question has been 
raised  as  to  whether  it  should  not  cover  other  pelagic  stocks  or  associated  fisheries, 
such as Norway pout and sandeel in the North Sea. The Commission considers that the 
limits of a RAC should, as far as possible, match with natural ecosystem boundaries, 
and is therefore reluctant to propose that the Decision be amended in this respect. 

(3) 

(4) 

The  management  of  deep-sea  stocks  has  become  a  high-profile  political  issue  for 
European fisheries and is currently being discussed in several RAC working groups on 
the basis of geographical criteria. In the Commission's view, while it is not necessary 
to create a specific RAC for deep-sea stocks, joint working groups should be set up to 
coordinate RAC advice on this subject and avoid duplication of workload. 

The Decision does not explicitly mention the Black Sea. However, the Mediterranean 
RAC could deal with the Black Sea through a specific working group, as happens with 
the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean - the model on which Annex 
I  of  the  2004  Decision  was  based.  Ad  hoc  discussion  forums  between  stakeholders 
from Romania, Bulgaria, relevant non-EU countries and the Commission are another 
option.  The  Commission  does  not  see  that  there  is  an  immediate  need  to  set  up  a 
specific  RAC  for  the  Black  Sea,  but  does  consider  that  there  is  an  urgent  need  for 
concerted  action  at  regional  level  regarding  fisheries  management,  research,  data 
collection and stock assessment in the Black Sea region. 

There are often issues that are of interest to two or more RACs. In these cases, RACs should 
aim to co-ordinate their positions and issue joint recommendations, as provided by Article 8 
of the Decision. Inter-RAC meetings offer opportunities for RAC secretariats and chairmen to 
plan the discussion of issues of common interest, and this practice should continue. 

2.2. 

Structure, membership and operational procedures 

2.2.1. 

Structure 

Each  RAC  has  a  General  Assembly  and  an  Executive  Committee  and  is  supported  by  a 
secretariat and a number of working groups. In addition, some RACs have developed "focus" 

EN 

4 

   EN 

groups to work on specific technical issues before launching a discussion in working groups 
and/or  the  Executive  Committee.  While  this  practice  can  facilitate  subsequent  discussions, 
sufficient  care  must  be  taken  to  ensure  that  all  interested  parties,  including  active  observers 
(Commission, national/regional administrations), can participate if they wish with no direct or 
indirect restrictions, such as lack of interpretation. However, undue proliferation of working 
groups should be avoided, and some rationalisation may be necessary in the future. 

2.2.2.  Membership 

•  Fisheries sector 

The catching sub-sector has been the most active in the fisheries sector. This is as expected, 
given that, under the terms of the Decision, each Executive Committee should include at least 
one representative of the catching sub-sector from each Member State concerned. Processors, 
traders and other market organisations, such as retailers, are also included in the definition of 
the fisheries sector in the Decision. These actors, together with consumer organisations, play a 
key  role  in  shaping  developments  in  the  fisheries  market.  It  is  the  Commission's  view  that 
these interests should become more active, so as to help shape the CFP "from net to plate". 

Participation by grassroots interests has not been as significant as had been hoped. This may 
be  unavoidable  with  such  large  organisations  as  RACs.  Further,  many  fishing  ports  do  not 
have adequate facilities to host RACs meetings. Nevertheless, grassroots participation should 
be encouraged. 

•  Other interests 

In some RACs, environmental and development NGOs have been active players despite some 
capacity  problems  and  difficulties  in  resourcing  all  the  working  group  meetings.  The 
Commission  would  like  to  see  more  active  participation  by  aquaculture  producers, 
recreational and sports fishermen and consumers, given the role that these stakeholders play 
in current policy and market trends affecting the CFP. 

The  relevance  of  having  ‘women's  networks’  in  the  ‘fisheries  sector’  group  could  be 
reconsidered.  In  almost  all  RACs,  the  group  representing  ‘women’s  networks’  wants  to  be 
part of the "other interests" group, as they believe that their interests go beyond fisheries to 
embrace the socio-economic dimension of coastal regions as a whole. 

A  number  of  groups  whose  membership  includes  interests  from  the  fisheries  sector  have 
asked to join RACs as "other interests". The proliferation of such organisations seeking seats 
on the Executive Committees is a cause of concern for the Commission, as it risks upsetting 
the current balance of interests. 

2.2.3.  Composition of statutory bodies 

•  General Assembly 

The  General  Assembly  approves  the  annual  report  and  appoints  members  of  the  Executive 
Committee.  The  Decision  states  that  the  Member  States  concerned  should  agree  on  the 
members of the General Assembly. This is implemented at the initial stage of setting up the 
RAC. The situation is less clear in cases where new organisations apply for membership once 
a RAC is already up and running. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

Two  thirds  of  the  seats  in  the  General  Assembly  must  be  allotted  to  representatives  of  the 
fisheries  sector  and  one  third  to  representatives  of  ''other  interests''  groups.  Once  a  RAC  is 
established,  it  is  difficult  to  maintain  this  ratio.  For  example,  if  an  NGO  withdraws,  two 
fisheries organisations should in theory be expelled to maintain the ratio. This rule also limits 
de  facto  the  number  of  members,  and  may  prevent  grass-roots  fishermen  or  market 
organisations from joining. The current composition rule should therefore be adapted, whilst 
ensuring  that  the  rights  of  all  groups  are  safeguarded,  in  particular  when  designating 
representatives on the Executive Committee. 

•  Executive Committee 

This  is  the  most  important  body  in  a  RAC,  as  it  manages  the  work  and  adopts 
recommendations. The number of seats is limited to 24. As with the General Assembly, two 
thirds of the seats are allotted to the fisheries sector and one third to the other interests group. 

The current system works satisfactorily for most RACs. However, two RACs (Long-Distance 
RAC and Mediterranean RAC) appear to have major problems complying with this rule, due 
to the large number of Member States and fisheries sector organisations concerned. To deal 
with this problem, the following options could be considered: 

–  The  number  of  seats  could  be  increased  to  30  by  a  consensus  decision  of  the  General 
Assembly,  while  maintaining  the  2:1  ratio.  This  would  require  an  amendment  to  the 
Decision,  and  would  have  the  advantage  of  creating  more  space  for  the  catching  sector, 
while  maintaining  the  current  balance  between  the  various  interests.  However,  there  is  a 
risk that any increase in the number of seats in favour of the catching sector would de facto 
diminish even further the influence of other interest groups, as they already have problems 
filling the seats allocated to them, due to lack of resources; 

–  The number of seats could be kept at 24, but RACs could introduce in their internal rules 
of procedure a system of rotation between organisations from the same group of interests, 
so that a greater number of organisations could occupy a seat on the Executive Committee 
over the course of time. 

There is no consensus among stakeholders at this stage. The Commission has a preference for 
the second option but is open to discuss alternative options, provided that the current balance 
of interests is not upset. 

While recognising that RACs should be composed mainly of fishermen, the Commission also 
believes that effective participation by all other interests is essential for the RACs to function 
properly  as  intended  by  the  Community  legislator.  Inadequate  stakeholder  representation 
could lead RACs to focus on technical issues that are only of interest to the catching sector. 
To  encourage  other  interest  groups  to  join  the  RACs,  discussions  should  include  broader 
issues, such as eco-labelling and market trends. 

2.2.4.  Operational procedures 

Decision-making within the RACs must be transparent. The roles of working groups and the 
Executive  Committee  have  to  be  clearly  defined.  The  multiplication  of  focus  groups  should 
not  lead  to  less  transparency.  When  having  recourse  to  written  consultation,  RACs  must 
ensure  that  all  members  concerned  receive  the  relevant  information.  Decisions  should  be 
taken by consensus wherever possible. If not, a clear reference to dissenting opinions must be 
annexed to the advice transmitted to the Commission. Minutes of meetings must be available 

EN 

6 

   EN 

to everybody. These rules are generally followed by the RACs, but a more systematic follow-
up should be ensured. 

It  is  essential  to  inform  all  members  and  the  public  about  RAC  activity.  Because  of  the 
complexity of the issues discussed and the increased workload, there is a risk that RACs may 
lose  touch  with  the  grass-roots  level  and  develop  a  life  of  their  own,  keeping  information 
within  a  small  circle  composed  mainly  of  Executive  Committee  members.  The  latter  must 
represent  their  own  constituencies  and  not  seek  to  act  as  independent  experts.  To  deal  with 
this  problem,  RACs  have  taken  a  number  of  positive  initiatives,  such  as  developing  useful 
websites where all documents are available, sending weekly information letters to members, 
and  preparing  press  releases.  Some  RACs  have  tried  to  increase  attendance  at  general 
assemblies by organising meetings in fishing ports or by setting up "speakers' corners". These 
positive initiatives should be continued and enhanced. 

RACs cannot provide translation and interpretation in all the languages of their members. Yet, 
they must guarantee equal access to information as far as possible. It is for RAC members to 
define proper rules for translation/interpretation and allocate an adequate proportion of funds 
for these purposes. 

RACs are stakeholder-led bodies. It is up to them to agree on their operating rules, within the 
general Community framework. However, it appears that internal rules of procedure are not 
always detailed enough to avoid conflicts of interpretation, provide solutions and guarantee a 
balance between the different groups. For instance, problems have arisen concerning requests 
for membership, non-payment of membership fees, etc. The role of the secretariat is essential 
in this regard to ensure the effective functioning of the RACs, and this should be reflected in 
their statutes. The Commission could propose relevant guidelines to the RACs based on best 
practice. 

2.3. 

Participation by non-members 

Scientists often attend RAC meetings to explain advice from the International Council for the 
Exploration  of  the  Sea  (ICES)  and  comment  on  data.  The  new  Memorandum  of 
Understanding (MoU) between the Commission and ICES has formalised the previous ad hoc 
arrangements  for  scientific  participation  at  meetings  with  stakeholders  and  vice-versa.  The 
definition  of  scientists  in  the  Decision  could  be  broadened  to  include  other  experts  such  as 
economists. 

The involvement of Member States varies. Some are more active than others, in terms of both 
attending meetings and financial or in-kind support. The active involvement of  the  Member 
States, as provided for in the Decision, will be key to the success of the RACs. 

The Commission provides the RACs with financial support and assists their Secretariats in the 
management  of  the  Community  co-financing  by  advising  on  the  implementation  of  grant 
agreements  and  the  Financial  Regulation.  Commission  experts  also  attend  working  group 
meetings within the limits of available resources. However, the Commission is of the opinion 
that it may not be appropriate for its officials to attend all RAC meetings, and their absence 
may  sometimes  facilitate  more  independent  discussion.  A  concise  agenda  should  be  sent  in 
advance, outlining RAC expectations regarding the Commission's participation. 

Participation  of  representatives  from  third  countries  is  useful  and  should  be  encouraged, 
although it may have to be restricted when discussing potential EU positions in negotiations 
with  third  countries.  The  absence  of  any  reciprocal  arrangement  creates  an  imbalance  at 

EN 

7 

   EN 

information  sharing  level.  Consideration  should  be  given  to  the  negotiation  of  reciprocal 
access by RACs to equivalent stakeholder meetings in third countries. 

The Decision provides for the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) to 
attend  RAC  meetings.  ACFA  is  the  second  pillar  of  CFP  governance.  Good  co-ordination 
with  ACFA  is  necessary  to  avoid  duplication  of  work,  but  the  division  of  responsibilities 
between  RACs  and  ACFA  is  not  always  clear.  It  may  be  simplistic  to  divide  the  RAC  and 
ACFA  work  into  regional  and  horizontal  matters  respectively,  as  there  may  be  legitimate 
'regional' dimensions to issues such as simplification, TACs and quotas, technical measures, 
etc. Likewise, advice from RACs can have implications across the board. The Commission is 
due to deliver an evaluation of the performance of ACFA and related financial instruments by 
June  2008.  One  of  the  issues  to  be  discussed  following  this  evaluation  is  the  co-operation 
between ACFA and the RACs and their respective roles. 

3. 

THE INPUT OF RACS TO THE CFP DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 

3.1. 

General trends: an improved dialogue with and between stakeholders 

The RACs have delivered better access to information and better understanding of decisions 
taken at European level. Through them, new proposals are presented to stakeholders, who also 
have  access  to  the  Commission  work  programme,  so  they  can  organise  their  agenda 
accordingly  and  request  complementary  information.  RACs  are  represented  on  the  advisory 
board of the Community Fisheries Control Agency and are involved in its work5. The flow of 
information is also bottom-up, RAC members providing the Commission with useful input on 
local realities. RACs have also helped create regional networks where experiences and ideas 
circulate more readily. 

RACs  have  become  active  players  in  the  CFP.  The  number  of  recommendations  to  the 
Commission  is  increasing,  as  is  the  number  of  meetings/seminars  (Annex  2).  Many 
recommendations  have  been  made  in  response to requests  from the  Commission, but RACs 
often  take  the  initiative  and  organise  events  and  workshops  on  issues  such  as  rights-based 
management  or  control  and  enforcement6.  In  a  number  of  cases  RACs  have  organised  joint 
seminars  or  invited  other  RACs  to  attend  their  meetings7.  In  addition,  some  RACs  are 
showing an interest in discussing maritime policy issues8. 

The  Commission  is  not  the  only  end-user  of  RAC  advice,  which  has  also  been  relayed  by 
Member  States  in  discussions  within  the  Council  of  Ministers  and  by  Members  of  the 
European Parliament (MEPs). RACs have also attended several meetings organised by MEPs. 
Some  Member  States  have  made  use  of  RAC  meetings  to  discuss  CFP  issues,  such  as  the 
designation of marine protected areas, with stakeholders. 

Overall,  the  RACs  have  helped  soften  hostility  towards  the  CFP,  thus  facilitating  further 
direct  contacts  between  stakeholders,  EU  officials,  Member  States  and  scientists.  However, 
the  RACs  are  still  going  through  a  learning  process.  In  order  to  agree  on  common 
recommendations, stakeholders first need to get to know each other better and develop new 

5 
6 
7 

8 

Council Regulation N° 768/2005/EC of 26 April 2005, OJ L 128, 21.05.2005, p1-14 
For example, the Baltic Sea RAC Conference on Control and Compliance (March 2007) 
For  example,  the  Joint  RACs  meeting  on  offshore  marine  protected  areas  (March  2008)  or  the  North 
Sea RAC and North Western Watters symposium on cod recovery (March 2007) 
Discussions on the Nord Stream project in the Baltic Sea 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
working  methods.  Some  RACs  have  benefited  from  existing  regional  initiatives,  while  in 
other  areas/sectors  such  structures  are  unprecedented  and  have  thus  faced  serious  capacity 
development  challenges.  This  explains  why  the  RACs  were  not  all  established  at  the  same 
time and have not developed their activities at the same pace. 

3.2. 

Follow-up of RAC advice 

In  accordance  with  Article  7(3)  of  the  Decision,  the  Commission  responds  to  all  RAC 
recommendations within three months and addresses all the issues raised. The Commission's 
replies are distributed among RAC members and are often posted on RAC websites. 

When consulting the RACs, the Commission is looking in particular for practical comments 
which can help it take more effective account of regional and local realities, or those linked to 
specific  fisheries.  In  this  respect,  the  quality  and  timeliness  of  RAC  advice  have  improved 
over  time.  Some  RACs  have  submitted  particularly  well-grounded  advice  on  long-term 
management plans, and the Commission has taken these recommendations into account. 

However, there have been cases where the Commission was not able to follow RAC advice. 
Some  RACs  have  complained  that,  when  negotiating  with  third  countries,  the  Commission 
fails to follow RAC recommendations adopted by consensus. However, in such negotiations, 
the  Commission  cannot  impose  its  view  unilaterally  but  must  seek  a  compromise  with  its 
counterparts.  Sometimes,  RAC  advice  has  required  action  beyond  the  Commission's 
competences. 

The RACs' input to TAC and quota proposals is one such difficult case. This annual exercise 
can  lead  the  catching  sector  to  focus  on  its  short-term  interests,  which  in  turn  can  make  it 
difficult  for  RAC  members  to  reach  consensus  among  themselves.  Indeed,  several 
environmental  organisations  have  withdrawn  from  discussions  and  refused  to  endorse  RAC 
proposals on this issue. On several occasions, despite their late submission, the Commission 
took  RAC  recommendations  into  consideration  during  the  final  negotiations  with  Member 
States. 

The  Commission’s  follow-up  of  RAC  advice  depends  on  whether  that  advice  is  compatible 
with CFP objectives and sustainable fisheries. This is the criterion that the Commission uses 
when  evaluating  RAC  advice,  and  not  whether  the  advice  is  consensus-based.  The 
Commission has repeatedly explained that it cannot follow RAC recommendations when they 
depart  significantly  from  scientific  advice  or  contradict  international  obligations  or 
Community long-term management plans. 

The  Commission  recognises  that  it  needs  to  establish  clear  guidelines,  indicating  the 
benchmarks used to evaluate the quality of RAC advice. The Commission intends to develop 
such  benchmarks  to  guide  RACs  in  their  work,  and  will  organise  annual  debriefings  with 
individual RACs to discuss the follow-up of their advice. 

3.3. 

Possible ways to improve the quality and timeliness of RAC advice 

RACs need time to consult their members properly, circulate proposals and collect evidence. 
The frontloading process provides more time for consultation and discussion with scientists, 
as most scientific recommendations are available by July. The impact assessment process can 
help enhance stakeholder involvement during the early stages of the Commission’s reflection. 
The Commission will improve its planning process so as to give better and earlier indications 
to the RACs and enable them to plan their work and establish priorities. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Documents  sent  to  the  RACs  by  the  Commission  may  seem  very  technical  and  difficult  to 
understand,  especially  when  they  are  available  in  one  language  only.  This  impedes 
consultation of grassroots fishermen and may further distort the balance of influence in favour 
of  those  representatives  who  do  have  the  requisite  technical  expertise.  RAC  members 
sometimes  feel  overwhelmed  with  information  and  cannot  work  out  what  is  expected  from 
them. The Commission will review its methods of consultation: documents will be drafted in 
simpler language and will contain a list of specific questions/issues on which the Commission 
is seeking RAC advice. 

RAC consultation should not focus on short-term issues which have an immediate economic 
impact. This only divides RAC members and helps undermine their legitimacy. Rather than 
engaging in a discussion on TAC figures for individual stocks, for example, the Commission 
would prefer to have a systematic discussion concerning the principles contained in its annual 
Policy Statement on fishing possibilities. RACs have an important role to play in the debate 
on long-term strategic issues, such as long-term management plans, discards or the ecosystem 
approach.  The  study  trip  to  Norway  organised  by  the  Commission  in  2007  presented 
interesting opportunities to discuss these issues with RAC representatives 9. 

RACs  were  established  to  elicit  stakeholders'  opinions  on  scientific  advice  and  political 
options,  not  as  a  substitute  for  scientists.  Nonetheless,  RAC  advice  should  be  based  on  the 
best  available  evidence.  The  new  MoU  between  ICES  and  the  European  Community  offers 
new opportunities for increased co-operation between RACs and ICES through presentations 
of ICES advice, focus groups on long-term management plans, data workshops, etc. On the 
basis of proposals from the RACs, the Commission can also ask ICES to carry out studies on 
specific issues. This co-operation could usefully be expanded to include economists and social 
scientists  from  STECF.  RACs  will  also  have  better  access  to  data  under  the  new  data 
collection rules10. 

There is clearly a link between the quality and impact of RAC advice and the composition of 
these  bodies.  Broad  multi-sectoral  composition  is  the  best  guarantee  of  good  and  balanced 
advice which is in line with the CFP's objectives. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The  current  legal  framework  is  generally  satisfactory,  having  enabled  the  creation  of  the 
RACs  and  guided  their  functioning.  There  may  now  be  some  scope  for  improvement  or 
clarification  of  certain  provisions  of  the  Decision  on  the  basis  of  the  experience  gained  to 
date. The Commission has pointed out where such changes might be contemplated and would 
like  to  discuss  these  issues  with  all  interested  parties  before  eventually  proposing 
amendments. 

9 

10 

The  Commission  organised  a  study  trip  to  Canada  and  the  USA  with  EU  stakeholders  in  early  June 
2006 to look at how management systems work in practice outside the EU. The Chairs from the RACs 
plus  an  NGO  actively  involved  in  RAC  work  were  invited  to  participate.  In  2007,  a  study  trip  was 
organised  to  Iceland  and  Norway  with  the  aim  of  discussing  discard  policy  experiences  in  these  two 
countries. 
Council regulation N° 199/2008/EC of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community 
framework  for  the  collection,  management  and  use  of  data  in  the  fisheries  sector  and  support  for 
scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 60, 05.03.2008, p. 1-12 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
However,  a  number  of  actions  can  also  be  implemented  in  the  short  term  to  improve  RAC 
functioning without the need for new legal rules. The Commission will therefore: 

–  encourage participation by a wider range of stakeholders, by promoting the organisation's 

image and role; 

–  improve RACs' access to scientific evidence and data, so that they can fully benefit from 

the MoU with ICES and from the provisions of the new data collection regulation; 

–  involve  the  RACs  in  reflection  on  the  long-term  development  of  the  CFP,  including  by 

means of dedicated study trips; 

–  improve  the  consultation  process  by  involving the  RACs  at  an  earlier  stage,  giving  them 
sufficient  time  to  respond  and  providing  them  with  clearer  and  more  easily  accessible 
documents; 

–  propose benchmarks to improve the consistency of RAC advice with CFP objectives. The 
Commission  will  also  consider  organising  annual  debriefing  meetings  with  the  RACs  to 
discuss its follow-up of their advice; 

–  improve the visibility of the RACs through the Commission’s website; and, 

–  propose guidelines on the rules of procedure and financial management of Community co-

financing; 

It is too soon to pass any lasting judgement on the RACs, as each RAC is at a different stage 
of development and has to work in very different conditions. However, despite the difficulties 
encountered in the start-up phase, the RACs have already made a positive contribution to the 
development of the CFP. 

The  Commission  will  listen  to  the  views  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and 
stakeholders before proposing any further amendments to the current legal framework. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

ANNEX 1 – Operational RACs (01/01/2008) 

North Sea RAC 

Pelagic RAC 

North-Western 
Waters RAC 

Baltic Sea RAC 

Long-Distance 
Fleet RAC 

South-Western 
Waters RAC 

Creation: 

1 November 2004 

16 August 2005 

26 September 2005 

13 March 2006 

30 March 2007 

9 April 2007 

Seat: 

Aberdeen, United 
Kingdom 

Rijswijk, Netherlands  Dublin, Ireland 

Member States 
concerned: 

9 – Belgium, 
Denmark, Germany, 
Spain, France, 
Netherlands, Poland, 
Sweden and United 
Kingdom 

10 – Denmark, 
Germany, Spain, 
France, Ireland, 
Netherlands, Poland, 
Portugal, Sweden and 
United Kingdom 

6 – Belgium, Spain, 
France, Ireland, 
Netherlands and 
United Kingdom 

Copenhagen, 
Denmark 

8 – Denmark, 
Germany, Estonia, 
Latvia, Lithuania, 
Poland, Finland and 
Sweden 

Madrid, Spain 

Lorient, France 

5 – Belgium, Spain, 
France, Portugal and 
Netherlands 

12 – Denmark, 
Germany, Estonia, 
Spain, France, 
Ireland, Italy, 
Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Poland, 
Portugal and United 
Kingdom 

Chairman: 

Hugo Andersson 

Iain MacSween 

Sam Lambourn 

Reine Johansson 

Antonio Cabral 

Victor Badiola 

Members : 

32 

60 

55 

42 

72 

115 

Website: 

http://www.nsrac.org 

http://www.pelagic-
rac.org 

http://nwwrac.org/ 

http://www.bsrac.org 

http://www.ccr-s.eu 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 – Statistics on RAC activity 

RAC recommendations sent to the Commission 

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

RAC Meetings 

2005

2006

2007

LDRAC

SWWRAC

BSRAC

NWWRAC

PELRAC

NSRAC

AG

EXCOM

WG

EN 

13 

   EN