Brussels, 02/05/2012 (Agence Europe) - In discussions on the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP), most EU fisheries ministers made the point on Friday of last week that different decision-making systems were needed for the various regions but that a common legal framework (objectives, rules, general principles, control mechanisms) had to be retained. To make regionalisation work, most countries are seeking to strengthen the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs).
It is on the nuts and bolts, the practicalities, of decentralisation that opinions differ, though most member states would like the EU to have the last word in order to ensure a level playing field. Will RACs have to be consulted? Will their views be binding? What will the decision-making procedure be and how will decisions be transposed into EU law (delegated acts or co-decision)? Several options are on the table. The Commission and the Danish Presidency of the Council of Ministers are to draft a new working paper on regionalisation which will be discussed at the next Fisheries Council in mid-May.
The Netherlands expressed the view that the Council and European Parliament (EP) should determine the framework for cooperation on regional-level measures and the RACs should be involved in implementing some rules at regional level. Regional measures must always be approved by the Council and the EP, using the co-decision procedure, the Dutch representative argued. The United Kingdom said that regionalisation must make it possible to break free from the one-size-fits-all approach.
France supports regionalised governance with a stronger regional level (for example, the North Sea or the Celtic Sea). It said that the RACs should be the main players in regionalised governance in cooperation with the relevant member states. The RACs, France said, should be a forum for discussion and a catalyst for decisions that are to be implemented regionally. France called for RACs to be compulsorily consulted before any proposal affecting them is adopted. Resources (in particular scientific and socio-economic expertise) allocated to the RACs must also be increased and the current rules that put fishermen in the majority on these bodies must not be changed. There should be RACs for all EU waters and a RAC for the outermost regions, France argued.
With regard to how this system of governance should work, France argued for a framework that combines definition of technical measures and multiannual plans at regional level, “while ensuring application of clear, consistent rules for their adoption at European level”. Thus, if there were unanimity among the countries concerned, after consulting the appropriate RAC, an agreement reached at regional level could be incorporated into EU law by means of an implementing act. If it proved impossible to reach agreement at regional level, the decision would be for the EU to take, on the basis of a Commission proposal taking account of discussions already undertaken and progress made. Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom adopted a joint declaration on regionalisation, expressing this view. Regionalised governance could be a key factor in modernising and involving stakeholders in decision-making: it must, however, remain in line with the treaty. Finally France said that multiannual plans must be one of the main tools of regionalised governance.
The Spanish minister said that regionalisation was a “positive” component in implementation of management measures to ensure consistency between the various geographical areas, each with its own peculiarities, and the EU's different fisheries. Spain said that it is the Council and EP which, through the co-decision procedure, should adopt multiannual management plans and implementation measures. It called for the role and funding of RACs to be improved, so that they can continue to work as consultative bodies and also as forums for drafting proposals as part of regionalisation of fisheries management. RAC proposals must be adopted by agreement, it said.
It is from the RACs that proposals for various instruments (technical measures for cutting discards at sea, fishing effort management measures and fishing capacity reduction schemes) should come. These proposals would then be taken on board by the Commission in the legislative process. Ireland, like many EU countries, has been concerned by the possible implications of the Commission's initial proposal which would result in a situation where all the countries would have different technical management bodies, making control difficult, the Irish minister said.
./…
At the end of the debate, Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki stated that she thought that progress was being made: “We are going to work on another document taking account of today's debate to try to find solutions.” The idea, she says, is to make provision in the basic CFP regulation for a flexible framework which includes a number of different approaches. She expressed two concerns. Firstly, what is decided must be workable. If a further decision-making level is introduced, this will inevitably mean more paperwork. And secondly, it must always be borne in mind that there is not an unlimited budget. (LC/transl.rt)