This year will be a crucial year for fisheries as Fiji islands nations would need to finalise their fishing treaty with the United States as well as firm up on a regional strategy on fisheries for the equally important economic partnership agreement (EPA) negotiations with the European Union.
By the end of 2011, parties were locked into serious and deep negotiations, mindful of the need to find some convergence of views, if at all possible. Documents made available to this magazine showed numerous attempts by Pacific Islands nations to get the US Government to agree to a new multilateral fisheries treaty.
At the start of the last round of negotiations in Fiji in November last year, islands nations offered US vessels a total of 7,000 days of fishing a year. This would consist of 6000 VDS days in the EEZ of any of the eight members of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) and the remaining 1,000 days for the EEZs of non PNA countries. Fees would be charged at US$10,000 per day.
VDS is fishing under the Vessel Day Scheme initiative of PNA, whose members are Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.
While the US Government’s response to this initial demand was not made public, it was clear Washington was unhappy.
Compromises were offered by the islands. Instead of 7,000 fishing days, the Pacific offered 6,000 days with a total payment of US$60 million.
We have previously noted that the US industry must pay a commercial level of access and as such, industry payments should form the majority of the financial package, the 3rd statement of the Pacific Islands’ negotiating team offered.
The proposal in our first statement was for 7,000 days and an associated financial package of no less than US$88 million (US$70 million from US tuna industry plus and increased US Government contribution).
The US team’s response to this proposal was made available and Washington was clearly disappointed and surprised.
We see no basis for agreement in the current proposal and time is running out, the official US response statement said.
We should also note our surprise at the statement in yesterday’s informal session that your (Pacific) side has not come to this meeting with a full negotiating mandate.
We came with a different expectation, namely that the delegations here have the authority to take decisions and make proposals that the Pacific Islands Parties will stand behind.
It was clear in their counter proposals that the US were not buying into the Pacific Islands’ position: they would not accept a US$60 million fee nor would they want to differentiate between fishing in PNA and non PNA members’ waters.
We are prepared to offer US$45 million for 9,000 days to be fished throughout the treaty area (as defined in our earlier proposal to mean waters under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Islands parties).
We would withdraw the proposal for an annual adjustment to the compensation package should the number of vessels change from year to year. Any adjustment of this type would be covered in the two-year review. As such, you would be guaranteed a fixed total amount for each two-year period.
However, the proposal remains contingent on 40 vessels in the US fleet at the time any agreement is reached.
If vessels leave the US fleet before negotiations have been concluded, we could not guarantee that we could offer the same total amount.
The Americans went on to warn the Pacific negotiating team that they have reached the maximum limit of their flexibility and can go no further.
We are very much aware of the time constraint that will cause the treaty to cease to have effect in May of next year, said the Americans.
If that situation does not change, there is little chance the treaty will survive. As we have made it clear, the negotiation of any new instrument would be risky and problematic at best.
The cessation of the treaty is in reference to PNG’s decision to formally withdraw from the current fisheries treaty with the Americans.
In the event this does happen in May this year and both parties are still at loggerheads and without any agreement, the US last November offered a temporary solution.
Islands Business International