GEF II PROJECT:
NATIONAL PROJECT PREPARATION REPORTS
NAURU
Foreword
This brief report was prepared by Dr. Tony Lewis and Esaroma Ledua during a visit to Nauru from 2nd to 5th June 2004. It
aims to assemble information relating to Nauru necessary for the preparation of the GEF SAP II Project.
The main aims of the report are:
· To make an assessment of the implications of the WCPF Convention for Nauru
· To identify possible interventions to support implementation by Nauru of the WCPF Convention
· To make an analysis of the incremental costs to Nauru of activities related to the Convention
· To undertake an analysis of stakeholders in Nauru with interests in the regional oceanic fisheries resources
· To identify relevant consultative mechanisms in Nauru for the GEF SAP II Project
· To collect information relating to available indicators of performance in areas related to the WCPF Convention and
to the financial sustainability of Nauru's participation in the Commission and implementation of the WCPF
Convention
The report is based on available published information and information provided in the consultations with stakeholders
listed in Annex 3.
1.Background
1.1 Status of Oceanic Fisheries
Nauru, situated at 0030'S and 165056'E, has a small but periodically productive zone (320,000 km2) surrounding the single
island (21 km2) that constitutes the Republic. Foreign fishing under access agreements is the main element of the tuna
fishery in Nauru waters. This primarily involves purse seine vessels of most DWFNs active in the region, with intermittent
fishing by Japanese pole-and-line vessels, and minor amounts of longlining. Catches in the EEZ have generally varied
between 10,000 and 40,000t, but exceeded 100,000t in 2002. The great variation in these annual catches is driven largely by
ENSO events
Nauru currently has no flag vessels which fish beyond its EEZ, and the lack of a commercial harbour and shoreside facilities
generally preclude large scale unloading or transhipment. There is substantial subsistence fishing for tunas and other
pelagics around deployed FADs, by trolling and midwater handlining, and the Nauru Fisheries and Marine Resources
Authority (NFRMA) operates an experimental longline vessel. There is potential for the development of a small locally-
based longline fishery for air-freight export of sashimi quality fish.
1.2 Oceanic Fisheries Management
The major objectives of tuna management and development policy set out in the Nauru Fisheries and Marine Resources
Authority Act (1997) and the Fisheries Act (1997) are to:
(a) manage, develop, conserve and protect the fisheries and marine resources of Nauru in such a way as to conserve and
replenish them as a sustainable asset for future generations
(b) promote the sustainable utilization of fisheries and marine resources of Nauru to achieve economic growth, improve
social standards, improved nutritional standards, human resource development, increased employment and a sound
ecological balance
(c) to pursue effective strategies for managing the fisheries and marine resources of Nauru so as to maintain the integrity
of marine ecosystems, to preserve biodiversity, to avoid adverse impacts on the marine environment, and to minimize
the risk of long-term or irreversible effects of resource extraction operations
(d) to enhance the administrative, legal, surveillance and enforcement capacities of the Republic for the management,
development, conservation and protection of the fisheries and marine resources of Nauru
1
The Minister, on the advice of NFRMA, may determine a TAC for the territorial sea and EEZ. NFRMA (see below) may
then develop a Fishery Strategy for any given fishery, taking into account this TAC. No Fishery Strategy is currently in
place, but Nauru intends to develop a Tuna Management Plan in the near future.
1.3Oceanic Fisheries Institutional Arrangements
Under the Fisheries and Marine Resources Authority Act of 1997, the Nauru Fisheries and Marine Resources Authority
(NFRMA) has been established as a statutory corporation. The Authority is the primary agency responsible for oceanic
fisheries management, with secondary roles for the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Justice, and Island Development and
Industry. All revenues for the sector are accrued to NFRMA. Access fees of around A$6 million p.a. have been received in
recent years.
NFRMA sets policy for approval by Minister, through a Board of Directors, comprising five Directors appointed by Cabinet
who are not Members of Parliament.
The Authority has a staff of 120 (permanent, expatriate and temporary) and an annual operating budget of around A$1.5 2
million. Within the Authority, there are four operational Divisions as below, with responsibilities for oceanic fisheries
undertaken mainly by the first two of these.
· Oceanic Division
· Administration
· Research and Development Division
· Operations Division
Overall, oceanic fisheries management is a major focus of the work of the Ministry, although few of the overall staff are
directly involved in OFM activities.
Other government agencies involved in oceanic fisheries are:
· Ministry of Island Development and Industry (including Environment)
· Ministry of Justice
· Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Consultation with stakeholders is currently on an ad hoc basis, though the anticipated Tuna Management Plan will provide
for a more formal consultative mechanism. There is an Environment Consultative Committee which meets to address
environmental issues, often of a terrestrial nature. The former Nauru Fishermen's Association is not longer active.
1.4
Other Oceanic Fisheries Management Issues
Other oceanic fisheries management issues which arose in the mission to Nauru include:
· Compatibility of current legislation with the Convention is uncertain assistance may be needed to verify this.
· Possibility of joint sea patrols with RMI, which may be extended to include adjacent high seas areas
2.Nauru and the WCPF Convention
2.1
Overview
With a tuna fishery based on foreign access, Nauru's primary aims in the MHLC and Prep Con process have been:
i)
to ensure that Nauru secures at least a fair share of access to the region's tuna resources
ii)
to ensure the application of measures to ensure the sustainability of the region's tuna stocks and fisheries.
Key elements of this for Nauru have been:
· implementing controls on the impact of purse seine fishing on juvenile bigeye and yellowfin
2
· limits on purse seine capacity, which continues to expand
As a Member of the Commission and a Party to the WCPF Convention, Nauru sees three major short term implications, as
follows:
i)
possible legal reforms to ensure existing legislation is compatible with the Convention. This will need to be
assessed
ii)
awareness raising of the Convention and its implications for Nauru
iii)
full and effective participation in the processes related to the Commission, including involvement of non-
government organisations.
Nauru has the capacity now to implement legally decisions adopted by the Commission, but in the longer term, may need
to strengthen its fisheries management capacity to apply any more sophisticated management measures.
2.2
Implications of the Convention
2.2.1 Legal
Although Nauru has had a suite of fisheries legislation in place since 1997, it is uncertain of this includes all necessary
powers for implementation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the WCPF Convention. This needs to be ascertained.
The National Environment Act governs environmental activities (?). The table below summarises the status of Nauru's
adoption of relevant international legal instruments and declarations.
Instrument
Status
WCPF Convention
Ratified
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
Ratified
UN Fish Stocks Agreement
Ratified
FAO Code of Conduct
Not ratified, but principles incorporated in the
Regulations
WSSD fisheries targets
Not formally adopted
Convention on Biological Diversity
Ratified
FAO Compliance Agreement
Accepted (check??)
FAO International Plans of Action
Not implemented
FFA Minimum Terms & Conditions
Implemented
Driftnet Convention
Ratified
Nauru has substantial legal capacity in the Ministry of Justice, but needs assistance for major technical initiatives.
Policy/Institutional
The NFRMA, as Nauru's principal fisheries agency is well organized, with a secure funding base. Although it is empowered
under the Act to develop a Tuna Management Plan, as the key instrument of oceanic fisheries policy and consistent with the
UN Fish Stocks Agreement, this has yet to be done. It is expected to occur on the near future and will include necessary
mechanisms for comprehensive stakeholder consultation
The Nauru Government sees a continuing need for capacity building in fisheries management and policy making,
particularly in areas related to the work of the WCPF Commission to enable Nauru to:
a) Identify appropriate strategies and options for oceanic fisheries management
3
b) ensure that Nauru participates effectively in the work of the Commission, including being able to ensure that
Nauru's interests are taken into account in this work; and
c) build support among stakeholders for the effective implementation of decisions of the Commission
The cost of financial contributions for Nauru to the WCPF commission is expected to be in the range of US$6,000 per year
once the Commission is fully established, although it may be more in the first year or two if major fishing states delay
becoming Members of the Commission.
2.2.3.Compliance
Compliance activities in Nauru are limited, as is capacity in the areas of enforcement and surveillance. Apart from some
aerial surveillance flights carried out intermittently by Australia and NZ as part of regional coverage, little else is in place,
involving either the Police or NFRMA. The FFA Regional VMS appears not to be functional all of the time, and there is a
need to develop capacity in this area as a priority. Nauru doubts if it will be able to implement the forthcoming VDS in early
2005, and appears to have a significant problem with the existing bandwidth for most telecommunication purposes.
There are ongoing discussions with adjacent RMI concerning the possibility of utilizing its patrol vessel for surveillance in
the Nauru EEZ and adjacent waters.
As there is no transhipment and landing/offloading in Nauru (although there has been some transhipment in the past), there
are no inspection programmes in place.
Flag State Responsibilities
Probably nil Nauru has no flag vessels operating beyond its EEZ.
2.2.4 Monitoring
Nauru has some monitoring capacity in place. Features are:
Logsheets: All foreign and domestic licensed vessels are required to provide catch and effort information at the operational
level on approved logsheets. Vessels are required to provide entry and exit reports, although the level of reporting is not
known. Logsheet coverage of the longline (and pole-and-line) fleet is considered high (approaching 100%). There is
probably not full capacity at present to able provide verified estimates of annual catch by species, gear and fleet in the EEZ.
Port sampling: There is currently no port sampling activity, as there has been no transhipment for some years.
Landings: No landings data are collected.
Observers: Nauru has some trained observers, and an observer fee is levied in access agreements. There has been some
coverage of purse seine fleets in the past, including USMLT vessels, but no coverage of FSM Arrangement vessels. If
observers will be required in the future, training and some supporting structure will need to be provided.
Nauru thus has only modest monitoring capacity, in line with the minimal amount of direct contact with licensed vessels
fishing in its EEZ. The major assistance needed in the future will be for training for observers, possibly port samplers and
statistical staff. It is clearly not viable for Nauru to establish its own training programmes for the small numbers involved,
and Nauru sees itself continuing to rely on the regional organisations for this function.
2.2.5 Scientific Analysis
Nauru is very supportive of regional stock assessment and ecosystem analysis, recognizing that it does not have the capacity
to undertake such work itself, and relies fully on the regional programmes for necessary information. NFRMA would
however like to improve its ability to interpret and apply scientific information provided at regional level to its national
situation. With the purse seine catch in its EEZ strongly influenced by ENSO events, Nauru is keen to receive predictive
information on these events, and supports the continuation of work on this issue.
4
3. Potential Contribution of SAP II Project
Potential areas in which the SAP II Project could contribute to assisting Nauru in the implementation of national activities
related to the WCPF Convention are summarised in the table below.
Activity
Incremental Actions
Possible Interventions
Legal
Revise Legal framework
Check compatibility of Act and Regs
Legal consultancy
with Convention
Support Commission
Provide legal advice and training in
Regional Legal Workshops
participation
selected areas
Implement Commission
Provide legal advice, change
In-country awareness workshop
decisions
regulations, licences
Policy
Participate in regional
Commission financial contributions
Regional Fisheries Management
policy formulation
Commission meeting participation
Training/Consultations
Attachments
Compliance
Increase IUU deterrence
Improve licensing, vessel register
Regional MCS Working Group
in-zone
Secure RMI patrols
participation
Develop inspection, investigation,
In-country Inspection, VMS staff
prosecution capability
training
Regional VMS
Enhance capacity, additional staff
Monitoring
Improve at-sea data
Establish observer programme
Ongoing in-country training of
port samplers by SPC and
observers by FFA/SPC
Improve catch
Initiate port sampling if transhipment
composition data
occurs
Provide data to the
Annual verified catch estimates and
Statistical training
Commission
reports
Science
Improve interpretive
Capacity building of selected staff
Scientific training
capability
ANNEXES
Annex 1 Incremental Cost/Co-financing Analysis
Annex 2 Stakeholder Inventory and Analysis (including consultative mechanism inventory)
Annex 3 Record of Stakeholder Consultation
Annex 4 Indicator Availability
Annex 5 Sustainability Analysis
5
Annex 1 Incremental Cost/Co-financing Analysis
Summary
Total 2005-2009
Theme
Total 2005-2009
Baseline
Incremental
(A$ 000)
1 Law
?
?
2 Policy/Management
1025+
115+
3 Compliance
175
100
4 Monitoring
175
50
5 Science
125
50
Total
1500+
315+
Nauru has relatively modest obligations under the Convention, but wishes to initiate to all necessary action to ensure that it
is able to participate fully in the work of the Convention, and is able to meet these obligations under the Convention.
Co-financing cost estimates based on:
Law: Participation in Commission activities and regional workshops; possible legislative review
Policy/management: Participation in Commission activities, annual contribution, raising national awareness
Compliance: Increased surveillance through cooperation with adjacent states
Monitoring: Expanded monitoring programmes
Science: Participation in regional science activity and training
Donor Funding (A$ 000)
Total 2005-2009
Theme
Donor
Project
Total 2005-2009 Incremental
Baseline
Compliance
OFCF
N/A
Not applicable
Base Data
2004
2004
Institution Programme Theme
%OFM
OFM
Budget
Budget
NFRMA
Administration
Policy/Mgmt
1,400,000
15%
210
NFRMA
Oceanic
Monitoring/licensing
40
100%
40
NFRMA
Oceanic
Port sampling/
40
100%
40
Observers
NFRMA
Oceanic
Statistics
30
100%
30
Justice
AG
Law
?
10%
?
ForAff
Policy/Mgmt
?
10%
?
Total
320+
6
Details
2004
2004
2004 WCPF
2005-2009
Total
Theme
Institution
Programme
OFM
Non-WCPF
New WCPF Increment
Increment
Baseline
Incr
budget
Baseline
2005 2006
2007 20082009Total
1 Law
AG
Law
?
?
?
?
?
?
2 Policy/Mgmt* NFRMA
Admin
210
5
205
1025
18
18
18
18 18
90
115
Foreign Aff
?
?
?
?
?
?
3 Compliance NFRMA
Compliance
40
5
35
175
15
15
15
15 15
75
100
Port
4 Monitoring NFRMA
40
5
35
175
5
5
5
5
5
25
50
sampling/observers
5 Science
NFRMA
Stats
30
5
25
125
5
5
5
5
5
25
50
320+
20+
300+
1500+
215+ 315 +
*includes Commission contribution of US $ 6,000 p.a. for 2005-2009, @ US$ = A$0.70
7
Annex 2Stakeholder Inventory and Analysis (including consultative mechanism inventory)
Country:Nauru
Date:2nd and 3rd June, 2004
Data Recorder:Tony Lewis (alewis9@bigpond.com)
Description of
Stakeholder analysis and preliminary participation plan
Stakeholder
Representative/
Contact details
Interests
1o s/holder
2o s/holder
Other
post
[factors that may
[role in decision-
[2-way flow of
influence
making]
information]
[Keep informed]
participation]
Nauru Fisheries and Marine
X
CEO
Tel: 488 3997
National
oceanic
Resources
Authority Anton Jimwereiy
fisheries authority
(NFRMA)
Ministry
of
Island Secretary
jc@eenpacnet.net.nr
Responsible ministry,
X
Development and Industry
Joseph Cain
policy
formulation
(MIDI)
GEF Focal Point
Ministry of Justice
Principal
Legal lr_angimea@yahoo
X
Officer
.com
Lionel Aingimea
Minster
for
Justice
and Russell Kuhn
X
Fisheries
Foreign Affairs
Pyon Deiye
X
Police
Superintendent
Norio Tebouwa
X
Manfred
X
Nauru Insurance Co.
Depaune
Buada
Lagoon
Owners
X
Nelson Temakin
Association
Small scale fishers
fishing
X
9
Annex 3Record of Stakeholder Consultation
GEF SAP II Country Mission
Republic of Nauru
Tuesday 2nd - Wednesday 3rd June, 2004
Stakeholder Consultation
The Mission held an initial primary stakeholders consultation at the Nauru Fisheries and Marine
Resources Authority (NFRMA) on Tuesday 2nd June, to discuss the development of the SAP II project,
and a more public consultation the next morning (Wednesday 3rd June) at the same location. An informal
dinner was held on the evening of Wednesday 3rd with the Minister and others.
Those present at the various consultations were:
Anton Jimwereiy, CEO, NFRMA; Joseph Cain, Secretary, MIDI and GEF Focal Point; Hon. Russell
Kuhn, Minister for Justice and Fisheries; Lionel Aingimea, Principal Legal Officer, Ministry of Justice;
Pyon Deiye, Foreign Affairs; Norio Tebouwa, Superintendent of Police; Nelson Temakin, Buada Lagoon
Owners Association; Manfred Depaune, Nauru Insurance; Bryan Star, MIDI; Cyril Buramen, A/Chair,
NFRMS Board, plus NFRMA staff. :
Peter Jacob, R & D Manager; Allan Debao, Nick Depaune, A/SFO Oceanic; Ace Capelle, Data Officer;
Samuel Teabuge, Licensing Officer; Gaelyn Dekarube, Clerical Asst/Data Asst; Karlick Agir, Publisher,
PR
The combined consultation combined a detailed presentation on GEF processes and project background,
with a general awareness presentation about the Convention, current tuna fishery management in the
WCPO, and implications of the Convention for Nauru, then a detailed needs assessment for Nauru.
Issues raised during the primary stakeholders'consultation included:
· The need to analyze the current legislation, to check for compatibility with the UNFSA and the
Convention; the need for legal assistance with revising existing Nauru legislation if model
regional legislation does not exist
· The need to develop a Tuna Management Plan as soon as possible, with assistance form
FFA/SPC, and including mechanisms for stakeholder consultation
· The need for capacity building in relevant areas, notable legal and policy making.
· Plans to use the RMI patrol vessel for surveillance in Nauru waters and surrounding, if this can be
arranged
· Training and financial support for observer programmes and port sampling, especially if
transhipment is to occur again.
· The need to raise awareness of the Convention and Commission and support for effective Nauru
participation in the work of the Commission.
Other one-on-one consultations held were with:
NFRMA: Anton Jimwereiy, CEO, and selected staff
Subsequent contact was also made with the GEF Operational Focal Point Joseph Cain, who attended the
primary Stakeholders Consultation.
Media coverage of the Convention and oceanic fisheries management generally was limited, given the
lack of any formal media structure on the island.
11
Annex 4 Availability of National Indicators
Current Value, if easily
Indicator
Availability
available
1. Coverage of:
a) catch and effort logsheets: locally-based
N/A
fleet
b) catch and effort logsheets: foreign access fleet
High
c) port sampling
N/A
d) observers: domestic fleet
Nil (previous programmes)
2. Levels of budgets and staffing for these
programmes
3. Levels of fleet capacity and fishing effort
4. Catch of target species,
Unverified
5. Levels of mortality of related species,
including bycatch and seabirds
Note: This analysis does not include a range of national indicators which are known to be available for
all countries such as status of legislation, undertaking of national reforms etc.
Annex V - Sustainability Analysis
Annual Government Revenue from licensing, access fees, export taxes,
USMLT and FSM Arrangement fees : A $ 5.0 6.0 million (recent years)
Annual In-Zone Catch Value: Variable but usually A$50 million plus
Annual Domestic Catch Value: not known
(Data above to be estimated by FFA)
Annual Production Value (including value of processing): A$ ?
Expected Annual Commission Contributions: US$6,000
Estimated Annual Government Incremental Costs:
12