European Commission response acknowledges NWWAC advice on technical measures, but offers limited change on Advisory Council involvement timing
European Commission Responds To NWWAC Concerns
The European Commission has acknowledged long-standing concerns raised by the North Western Waters Advisory Council over its role in shaping technical and remedial fisheries measures, but stopped short of committing to structural change.
In a formal response dated 3 February 2026, the Commission thanked the NWWAC for its advice of 16 December 2025 on strengthening Advisory Council involvement, describing its engagement as “constructive” and “valuable”, while largely restating existing consultation processes.
The letter, signed by Charlina Vitcheva, Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, follows NWWAC warnings that Advisory Councils are often consulted too late to meaningfully influence outcomes, particularly where technical or remedial measures are tied to Total Allowable Catch negotiations or shared stock consultations with third countries.
Consultation Timing Remains A Core Issue
The Commission confirmed that the legal framework under Article 18 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation and Article 29 of the Technical Measures Regulation already provides for Advisory Council consultation when Member States develop joint recommendations.
However, it conceded that timing remains problematic.
“The Commission notes the NWWAC’s concerns regarding the timing of such consultations and will continue to encourage Member States to engage Advisory Councils as early as possible,” the letter states, adding that sufficient time should be allowed “to the extent possible” for stakeholder input.
No new obligations or binding timelines were proposed.
The Commission also said Advisory Councils are informed when relevant public consultations are published on the EU’s ‘Have Your Say’ portal, both for formal input and for circulation among members.
Remedial Measures Driven By ICES Advice
Responding to NWWAC concerns about limited involvement when remedial measures are introduced, the Commission said such measures are often legally unavoidable.
It pointed to the ICES advice for 2026, which it said demonstrated “severe deterioration” in certain stocks, requiring action in line with agreed management orientations ahead of consultations with the UK and Norway.
The Commission said it engages with Advisory Councils every year once ICES advice is delivered and before EU negotiating positions are finalised, describing this phase as “key” for stakeholder input.
Where measures are negotiated with third countries, it stressed that the Commission acts on the basis of Council-agreed EU positions, in coordination with Member States.
Previous Engagement Cited, But No New Commitments
The Commission referenced previous exchanges with the NWWAC on sensitive stocks, including spurdog and skates and rays, and said these discussions had informed the EU position in recent EU-UK consultations.
It also cited dedicated meetings with Advisory Councils on issues such as Northern Shelf cod, presenting this as evidence of ongoing engagement.
“The outcome of the consultations will be presented to the Advisory Councils at the next opportunity,” the letter said, adding that continued cooperation would be essential.
Again, no mechanism was outlined to guarantee earlier or deeper involvement.
Openness To Improvement, But Vague On Delivery
While stating that it remains “open to improving the way engagement is conducted”, the Commission framed future cooperation largely around implementation work under the Specialised Committee on Fisheries.
It said commitments recorded in international consultations must translate into action early in the year, and that close cooperation with Advisory Councils should continue, particularly where stocks are in critical condition.
The response concludes by welcoming the NWWAC’s commitment to constructive cooperation and reaffirming support for “transparent, participatory, and evidence-based decision-making”.
For the NWWAC, the letter confirms recognition but leaves unanswered whether Advisory Councils will gain real leverage earlier in the process, or continue to react to decisions already shaped elsewhere.