In its studies WWF pointed out that the European Union’s seven Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) needs improvement along with the structural balance between the industry and NGOs. WWF is heading towards a new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 2012 and so 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).
WWF has put forth some recommendations and findings in its studies such as at present, many NGO members have problems due to documents being sent out at short notice, which means the members cannot prepare adequately. 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.
The studies recommend all 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.
It is reported that 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. Better balance between the sector and other interest groups is called for. 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.
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.
