1.
Parties to the Nauru Agreement
The PNA Vessel Day Scheme
Tenure and Fishing Rights 2015
Siem Reap, Cambodia
23-27 March 2015
Ms. Patricia Jack-Jossien

2.
Parties to the Nauru Agreement
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Background to PNA
PNA Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme
Objectives
TAE and PAEs
Value of the Fishery
Prices and Revenue
VDS Issues
Recommendations

3.
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”

4.
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
NR
KI
KI
MHFM
PG
PW
SB TV
KI

5.
Parties to the Nauru Agreement
PNA IS 50% of global skipjack catch

6.
Parties to the Nauru Agreement

7.
Parties to the Nauru Agreement
Mostly targeted
by LongLine in
high seas
PNA fishery
[Yellowfin also
Long Line target]

8.
Parties to the Nauru Agreement
PARTIES TO THE NAURU AGREEMENT
Nauru 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

9.
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 $, tenders
add icing to the PNA cake – vertical integration into
processing and trading – PACIFICAL – Co-Brand

10.
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)


11.
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.

12.
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

13.
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

14.
Parties to the Nauru Agreement
PACIFIC ISLANDERS IN PNA PLANTS –
PNG, SI and RMI

15.
Parties to the Nauru Agreement
PNA Fishery Information Management System [FIMS]
FADs
eForms/MSC
Satellite
Purse Seine
Long 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

16.
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

17.
Parties to the Nauru Agreement
Recommendations
 Establishment of Working Group to address
issues/recommendations highlighted in the Review of the
Purse Seine VDS
Institutional Strengthening
Research Activities
Legal Reforms
VDS Design Proposals
Transparency Proposals
 Avoid bureaucratic approaches that would reduce the
flexibility and effectiveness of the PNA decision processes
that had been demonstrated recently