PelAC and NWWAC submit advice on AC management practices, proposing governance, accountability and conduct measures for Advisory Councils
Joint Advice Sent To DG MARE
The Pelagic Advisory Council, PelAC, and the North Western Waters Advisory Council, NWWAC, have submitted joint advice to the European Commission outlining proposals for improving governance and management practices within EU Fisheries and Aquaculture Advisory Councils.
In a letter dated 13 February 2026 and addressed to Charlina Vitcheva, Director General of the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, the two Councils state that their contribution is intended to feed into the development of a future Code of Conduct.
The document recalls that Advisory Councils were created following the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy as stakeholder-driven organisations. Since their establishment under Council Decision 2004/585/EC, the ACs have provided advice and recommendations to the European Commission and EU Member States on fisheries, aquaculture and seafood processing, including socio-economic factors and conservation measures.
The advice notes that, although ACs share a common legal basis, they operate within different national legislations and traditions, resulting in differences in management practices and cultures. It states that while most ACs are perceived to operate with high ethical and management standards, there have been occasions where structural and procedural shortcomings became apparent.
The document positions the advice as a continuation of efforts to address such shortcomings by highlighting best practices, improving consistency across ACs, and safeguarding a respectful work environment. It also references the ongoing evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and recent or ongoing performance reviews of ACs under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242.
Identified Issues
The joint advice sets out several identified issues.
First, it highlights differing understandings across ACs regarding the roles, rights and responsibilities of Chairs, Vice Chairs, Secretariats and members. It states that these roles should be clearly defined, mutually agreed and effectively communicated. To support alignment, the Councils propose drafting a Memorandum of Understanding, MoU, among ACs to define roles, rights and responsibilities and potentially recommend a management team structure.
Second, the document refers to “power plays, imbalances, disrespect,” noting that Advisory Councils bring together actors who may have opposing views. It states that acknowledging and openly addressing such issues is necessary to maintain fairness, respect and equity. It specifies that Chairs and Vice Chairs bear responsibility for maintaining or restoring a workable environment, with Secretariats supporting action needed to uphold cooperation.
Third, the advice addresses inappropriate behaviour and sexual harassment. It defines inappropriate behaviour as actions that are unwanted, disrespectful or harmful, and defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances or conduct that affects dignity or creates a hostile environment. Although it states that no formal reports of inappropriate behaviour or sexual harassment have been documented across the 11 ACs, it adds that the risk cannot be dismissed. The Councils propose establishing a clear and confidential reporting mechanism, a trained and gender-diverse committee to receive complaints, and disciplinary sanctions that may include suspension or expulsion. Reflections on a joint committee among ACs are suggested. A Code of Conduct is proposed as the basis for such measures.
Fourth, the document refers to lack of responsibility, accountability and transparency. It states that responsibility involves fulfilling duties and making ethical decisions, accountability ensures answerability, and transparency enables scrutiny. It warns that failure to uphold these principles can result in poor communication, loss of credibility and diminished integrity. The Code of Conduct should outline how these principles are to be fulfilled.
Fifth, the advice refers to limited responsiveness and initiative. It states that Chairs, Vice Chairs and members should evaluate their capacity to fulfil their roles, and that responsive and accountable leadership enables effective support from Secretariats and members.
Sixth, it highlights administrative burden and high expectations placed on Secretariats. The document states that Secretariats manage administrative and financial operations and draft advice and recommendations. It notes that the scope of AC work has expanded to include environmental policy, energy transition, trade, markets and spatial planning. It proposes clear job descriptions for Executive Secretaries, essential training, annual exchange of best practices and attention to continued professional development.
Proposed Roadmap
Under a proposed roadmap, the Councils list minimum measures aimed at improving transparency, accountability and governance.
They propose that an MoU among ACs should:
- Develop clear definitions, titles, expectations, mandates and objectives.
- Establish HR and 360-degree staff performance reviews and feedback mechanisms for Chairs and Secretariats.
- Strengthen democratic leadership through term limits, anonymous voting and confidence-based elections for Chairs.
- Develop policies for handling inappropriate behaviour, including sanctions.
The advice further proposes regular 360-degree feedback mechanisms, potentially supported by an independent body. It calls for clear service agreements and codified roles within Rules of Procedure. It suggests establishing a clear line of command, with Chairs and Secretariats answering to the Executive Committee with support from the Board or Management team.
Long-term actions proposed include developing a joint mechanism to receive, address and resolve conflicts, complaints and inappropriate behaviour, and developing training and capacity building for Chairs and Secretariats.
The document outlines a three-part structure for handling complaints: establishment of an external whistleblower mechanism, creation of a dedicated internal committee to manage complaints, and availability of an external mediation service if internal resolution is unsuccessful.
Conclusion
The joint advice concludes that implementation of the proposed measures would address gaps in current functioning by improving wellbeing, accountability, transparency and efficiency. It states that the measures could be formulated into a dedicated Memorandum of Understanding and feed into the ongoing evaluation of the functioning of Advisory Councils as part of the Common Fisheries Policy review. The Advisory Councils indicate that they will reach out to the Commission regarding implementation of the proposed measures.