Parties to the Nauru Agreement

The PNA Vessel Day Scheme

Tenure and Fishing Rights 2015

Siem Reap, Cambodia23-27 March 2015

Ms. Patricia Jack-Jossien

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Presentation OutlineIntroductionBackground to PNAPNA Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme

ObjectivesTAE and PAEs

Value of the FisheryPrices and Revenue

VDS IssuesRecommendations

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Introduction: Reporting on the VDS “Fees from fishing licences are delivering stronger than expected revenues in the smallest

Pacific countries, according to the Asian Development Bank's latest Pacific Economic Monitor. It is the second year in a row that Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru and Tuvalu have done better than they expected and it is all a result of the Vessel Day Scheme put in place by the 8 tropical tuna countries that are Parties to the Nauru Agreement”

“arguably the largest and most complex fishery arrangement ever to be put in place”

“there is equally great concern that the PNA does not have the political will necessary to make the VDS effective as a management tool for the WCPFC tuna fishery” (2010)

“PNA’s ‘vessel day scheme’ is proving to be a masterstroke”

“PNA nations, for example, drove the price demands in the treaty talks with the US that saw the US agree last year to triple access payment from $21 million to $63 million annually.”

“Earning Billions from our Tuna Resources - Learning from the successes of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement”

“$4 billion harvest in WCPFC”

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

The PNA area, a vast 14.3m km2 of combined EEZ; same scale as Indian Ocean and SE Asia

8 small island nations – Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Is., & Tuvalu -but in fact all are “large ocean states”; incl 2 smallest island nations Nauru 20km2 and Tuvalu 26km2

NRKI

KI

MHFM

PG

PW

SB TV

KI

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

PNA IS 50% of global skipjack catch

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Mostly targeted by LongLine in high seas

PNA fishery[Yellowfin also Long Line target]

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

PARTIES TO THE NAURU AGREEMENTNauru Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Management of Fisheries of Common Interest (Nauru Agreement - 1982)Established over leaders Common Concerns /Interests over:

exploitation of common stocks of fish, both within the EEZs and adjacent waters, by DWFNs

dependence, as developing island states, on the rational development and utilization of the living resources within the EEZs, in particular the common stocks of fish

co-operation in the management of the EEZs to achieve maximum benefits from the fisheries resources

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

PNA… continued PNA Leading tuna conservation and management over 3 decades. Setting MTC for the region through South Pacific Forum

Fisheries Agency and initiating Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission measures.

VDS has increased the purse seine revenues; Broadly PNA office has been directed to work in 3 general

areas; growing the PNA cake bigger – more catch MT and higher

value fishery $take a bigger slice[s] for PNA – benchmark $, tendersadd icing to the PNA cake – vertical integration into

processing and trading – PACIFICAL – Co-Brand

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Vessel Day Scheme System of tradable fishing effort (days) allocated to the 8

Parties Hard limit on number of fishing days (~45,000 days) that

can be fished; Limiting effort controls output; Scarcity helps maintain prices, conserves, and improves viability

of PNA industries;Higher prices and scarcity mean higher VDS prices;Higher prices add value transfers the burden to fishing fleets to compete amongst

themselves for access through VDS fishing days; Applies to PS vessels (~280) in EEZs, not AW (PG, SB) Tokelau also participates in the VDS

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Future TAE & PAEs

TAE US allocation

FSMA allocation

PAEs:• FSM• Kiribati• Marshall Is• Nauru• Palau• PNG• Solomon Is• Tuvalu

Bilateral partners; others.

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Value of Days We are now a “sellers Market” In 2010 when PNAO started, value of a fishing day was

$1,100 Yet until 2010 PNA had no formal staff or office, just adhoc meetings on the

margins. 1/1/2010 PNA Office opened and full time technical staff of 3, today 5 100% self

funded

2012 value of a day was set at $5,000 (minimum benchmark)

2014 value of a day was set at $6,000; days sold at ≥$7K 2015 value of a day set at $8K, Traded days now in excess of $10,000 a day Some days are now being tendered

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Value of the PNA Purse Seine Fishery(US$ million per annum)

Revenue $60m 2010; $200m+ 2013-2014, 300-350m from 2015

Parties to the Nauru AgreementPACIFIC ISLANDERS IN PNA PLANTS –

PNG, SI and RMI

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

PNA Fishery Information Management System [FIMS]FADs

eForms/MSCSatellite

Purse SeineLong Line

PG NR MH KI TV SI FMPW

Companies

PNA Data Centres

*VDS View and Trading for owned vessels*VMS Access to Vessels and FADs owned

*VDS Registry and Trading*ATS/VMS Access/Alerts for Vessels & FADs*eForms and MSC Chain of Custody*Observer Management and Monitoring*Backup Replication of Country Data to each Country

Other Vessels

Observers

IFIMS -Company Access

SPC

FFA

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Issues The need for more competitive processes –

tendering/auctioning Dealing with increasing vessel fishing power Country-driven exercise in self-reliance - supported by FFA and

SPC, little direct donor support The sub-regional element The PNA Office – (why) did PNA have to set up outside the

existing regional organizational structure? Sharpened fees/domestic development trade-off Why did it take so long? Contradiction of substantial bodies of technical advice Policy incoherence Sustainability

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

Recommendations Establishment of Working Group to address

issues/recommendations highlighted in the Review of the Purse Seine VDS Institutional StrengtheningResearch Activities Legal ReformsVDS Design ProposalsTransparency Proposals

Avoid bureaucratic approaches that would reduce the flexibility and effectiveness of the PNA decision processes that had been demonstrated recently