AIDCP budget. Xx. Xxxx Xxx-Wade, of the Secretariat, presented Document MOP-23-06. The AIDCP has been in deficit for several years; the Secretariat has cut costs where possible, but there are fixed costs that cannot be re- duced, and the funds received are insufficient to cover costs. The Secretariat was therefore requesting a minimal increase of USD 1.55 per cubic meter of vessel well volume, from USD 14.95 to 16.15. If this were not approved, the IATTC could be asked to increase its share of the observer budget from 30% to 40%, in order to keep the program solvent. Several delegations stated that they could not approve the requested increase, and brought up the possibil- ity of reducing the coverage by observers from 100%. The European Union (EU) noted that this was a burden for the vessels that do not fish on dolphins, and that 100% coverage is not necessary for such ves- sels, and suggested that a requirement of 50% coverage would be suitable. Panama asked about the proportions of the observers’ work that are for the IATTC and the AIDCP, re- spectively, and Xx. Xxxxxxx responded that the IATTC has been calling upon observers to do more and more work, especially since observers report on compliance with IATTC measures. Mexico pointed out that dolphin-related matters are not as critically important as in the past, and sug- gested that coverage could be reduced by a greater use of Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) as an alter- native for verifying compliance. The United States acknowledged the success of the AIDCP, but noted that 100% observer coverage was a critical element of this success, and was not in agreement with reducing that level of coverage. Colombia asked whether the coverage by national programs could be increased and that organized by the Secretariat reduced; the Secretariat clarified that, because fixed costs would remain unchanged, this would not significantly affect the budget. Finally, the Parties did not approve the increase in vessel fees requested by the Secretariat, but decided that the efforts to reduce costs should continue.
AIDCP budget. Xx. Xxxx Xxx, of the Secretariat , presented Document AIDCP-42-01 AIDCP budget abstract. She reported on the result of the 2020 financial activity, reflecting a surplus of US$ 451,284, the projected budget for 2021 and the recommended budget for 2022. Additionally, this surplus was added to the 2019 surplus of US$ 2,144,071, for a total of US$ 2,595,355. US$207,269 were set aside for distribution to national programs, resulting in a surplus of US$2,388,086 as of 31 December. It was reported that, as of 31 July 2021, there were outstanding vessel assessments for US$ 616,723. These arrears include 1 vessel from Ecuador, 2 from Nicaragua, 1 from Panama, and 9 from Venezuela. Nicaragua, after requesting a correction in the table of vessels in arrears, pointed out that governments should be notified in advance when there are arrears so that payments can be settled before the meetings. Nicaragua also requested that, when there are payment arrangements between the Secretariat and the vessel owners, the respective governments' endorsement or agreement be notified and obtained. The Secretariat recognized that the governments are responsible for the payments to the AIDCP and would therefore ensure in the future that governments approve any possible payment arrangements that are established pragmatically with vessel owners. Venezuela reported that the vessels Albamar I and Tunapuy have had mechanical problems and have not been operating, so they have had trouble obtaining the resources to pay their financial contributions, but they were still required to make contributions to the program. The rest of the 7 vessels in arrears are in the process of paying. Ecuador reported that they are making arrangements for the outstanding payment of the vessel Xxxxxxx. The United States mentioned that In some cases the delays in payments were due to the fact that the vessels were listed as active in the Register even though they were not fishing, so it would make sense to either remove them from the Register. The Director stated that removing the vessel from the register when it is not operating so as not to increase its debts to the program may be one solution, but another is to classify it as inactive, since there is a considerable difference in payment if it is registered as active (US$ 14.95 per m3 of well volume) or inactive (US$ 1 per m3). Regarding the existing surplus, Colombia recalled that Resolution A-19-01 states that "the AIDCP allocate to the observer programs 10% of ...
AIDCP budget. Xx. Xxxx Xxx Wade, of the Secretariat, presented Document MOP-33-06 noting that this year the program had a surplus, and it is not necessary to increase vessel quotas. However, the current situation is extraordinary and unlikely to be repeated as overdue vessel payments for considerable amounts were received, so an increase might be needed in the near future. It was emphasized that is difficult to project future AIDCP budgetary needs and take into account the unpaid contributions. The Secretariat depends of the financial results of the previous year to forecast future needs, and the direct costs of observers on board can fluctuate depending on the number of trips made, the cost of travel, the availability of local observers, etc. Similarly, income can vary according to how much capacity is active in a given year, payment of outstanding balances of previous years, vessels paying surcharges for delay, and the full payment of all vessels contributions in a timely manner. Some delegations congratulated the Secretariat for the surplus reached this year, noting that reflects better management efforts. Others suggested that the surplus was due to the irregular circumstance of the activation and payment of assessments by vessels that were added to the register, but which utilized few services, and emphasized the importance of approving a budget amount and then adjusting the assessment rate accordingly. Guatemala highlighted the efforts of the owners to honor their outstanding contributions, especially on the case of Xxxxxxx vessel that made its outstanding payments despite it was reflagged. Several Parties highlighted the difficulties to plan the budget as a result of the changing nature of the fishery, the mobility of vessel in the regional register and payment arrears in some cases. The European Union noted that the Parties were approving to maintain an assessment rate and collect and spend the money that would result, and that what was missing was the approval of a budget amount based on projected needs. In response, the secretariat presented the expenses of the first months of 2016 along with a projection for costs for the remainder of the year. The United States and the EU supported further exploration of a mechanism to directly link the vessel assessment rates to the amount of the approved budget, which would help provide greater stability and predictability to the AIDCP budget process and alleviate the need for exhaustive reviews each year. Following a sugg...
AIDCP budget. Xx. Xxxxx presented the salient information contained in Document MOP-16-05 regarding the AIDCP budget. This document presents the forecast expenditure and revenue for 2006 compared to that presented to the 15th Meeting of the Parties in June 2006. The 2005 Resolution on financing the AIDCP (A-05-01) raised the vessel assessment rate for 2006 from US$ 12.552 to US$ 14.184 per cubic meter of well volume; it also provided that the assessments of those vessels whose well volume had been verified should be based on that verified well volume rather than the estimated well volume, which was generally larger. An additional measure to balance the AIDCP budget was taken in the 2006 Resolution on financing the AIDCP (A-06-01) by immediately raising the rate from US$ 14.184 to US$ 14.95/m3. The information presented showed the predicted costs and revenues for 2006, and estimates updated through 31 August 2006. 2006 revenue is based on actual assessments paid by vessels covered by the AIDCP (over 363 t capacity) and small vessels, plus surcharges both paid and outstanding as of 31 August 2006. Xx. Xxxxx commented on the observation in the document that the current forecast projects a deficit of US$ 61,205 for 2006, with a total anticipated accumulated deficit at the end of 2006 of US$ 516,654. Xx. Xxxxx noted that the 15th Meeting of the Parties did not reach a decision on a recommendation by the Secretariat that the income from charges for small and inactive vessels and late payment fees remain with the Secretariat and no longer be included as part of the amount reimbursed to the national programs. In 2006, this would have resulted in retaining approximately US $50,000, thus converting the current year’s anticipated deficit into a surplus of about US$ 37,000. The meeting agreed that all fees for late payments and inactive vessels would be retained by the Secretariat, and that this policy would apply to those fees not yet paid for 2007, and would continue so long as there was a deficit in the program. This agreement was recorded in writing (Appendix 2); it also clarifies that vessels entering the fishery during the course of a year that did not fish in the Agreement Area during the previous year are not required to pay the surcharge of 10% of the assessment for late payment, regardless of their date of entry to the fishery.
AIDCP budget. Xx. Xxxxxxx, Director of the IATTC, recalled that, at the meeting held in Mexico City in July 2017, a $3,319,906 USD budget was approved, with a surplus of $1,438,312 USD as of 31 December 2016, and that the Secretariat was asked to prepare proposals on how to spend said surplus. He mentioned that in Document MOP-36-06, “Research Proposals by IATTC Staff”, the staff proposed 5 research projects to use the surplus as follows: Cost (US$)
AIDCP budget. Xx. Xxxx Xxxx, of the Secretariat, presented Document MOP-29-06 on the AIDCP budget, highlighting the program’s deficit. The Secretariat was recommending an increase in vessel assessments from US$ 14.95 to US$ 17.61/m3, in order to resolve the current deficit, and the implementation of one of the options described in the document for improving the future financial stability of the AIDCP. The European Union stated that it had difficulty in understanding the budget presented, and recalled that it had been agreed to carry out an evaluation of the Secretariat of the IATTC and the AIDCP, and that it would not accept any change in the budget if the terms of reference for that evaluation were not approved. The United States noted that the Secretariat had followed the instructions to reduce costs, and that some of the options for reducing the deficit presented in the document were interesting, such as auto- matic adjustments of the budget. Nicaragua noted the need for a comprehensive solution to the budgetary problems of the IATTC and national observer programs. The United States commented that the national programs and their xxxxx- cial situation were not the responsibility of the Parties to the AIDCP. Mexico recalled that attempts had been made to delegate solutions to the AIDCP’s budget problems to the IATTC, but without success, and reiterated its position that the evaluation proposed by the European Union should cover both the IATTC and the AIDCP, and not be limited to the operation of the Secretariat but address the performance of the IATTC and the AIDCP as a whole. Mexico also noted that linking the budget to an economic indicator could be positive. The concept of linking vessel assessments to the AIDCP budget (option 5.5.2 in document MOP-29-06) generated a great deal of interest among the Parties and was generally supported, and the Secretariat was asked to prepare a simulation of its application in practice for consideration at the next Meeting of the Parties. At the request of the Parties, a list of vessels with payments to the IDCP outstanding was presented (Ap- pendix 2), and the Secretariat was asked to send letters to the Parties in question requesting payment. Finally, no decision was reached regarding the budget and a possible increase in the vessel assessments, and the matter was postponed until the next Meeting of the Parties in October 2014.
AIDCP budget. Xx. Xxxx Xxx-Wade, of the Secretariat, presented Document MOP-25-06, stressing the need to increase the vessel assessments for the observer program, as had been requested since 2008, in order to deal with the budget deficit and increases in costs. The last increase was in 2006, and the assessments have re- mained at US$ 14.95 per cubic meter (m3) of vessel well volume since then. She noted that a rate of US$ 18/m3 would balance the budget, and a rate of US$ 19.15/m3 would soon eliminate the deficit. Venezuela commented that countries that do not participate in the AIDCP but benefit from its work should contribute to the program. Panama stated that it agreed with the proposed increase to US$ 19.15/m3 Mexico noted that increasing the assessments is not the only way of resolving the budget problem; ob- server coverage could be reduced, or the amount paid by the IATTC for the observer program could be increased, perhaps from 30% to 40%. He asked what the effect of such an increase would be.
AIDCP budget. Xx. Xxxxx presented Document MOP 17-06, which shows the actual costs for 2006, the expected budget for 2007 and proposed budget for 2008 to support all costs related to the AIDCP.
AIDCP budget. Xx. Xxxxx introduced Document MOP-13-05b, which presents the actual costs of the AIDCP for 2004 and proposed budgets for 2005 and 2006. Following this presentation, a very lengthy discussion ensued on the AIDCP budget and how it should be financed. Several delegations expressed an interest in reducing the costs of the AIDCP, and some ideas on how to accomplish this were put forward. One such idea, a reduction in the number of meetings of AIDCP subsidiary bodies, was later agreed by the Parties. The meeting agreed that the issue of cost reduction should be discussed further in October 2005, along with a plan to eliminate the accumulated deficit. At the same time, the meeting recognized that an increase in the assessment rate for vessels required to carry observers was necessary to ensure that the program was adequately funded, because of the overall reduction in well volumes of vessels that had been measured, rather than determined using the previously agreed 1.4 conversion rate, in accordance with the recommendations of the April 2005 ad hoc well volume review group. The meeting was adjourned to allow for informal consultations and further consideration of the issues. Several options were considered, illustrated in Appendix 2. When it reconvened, after more debate, a resolution (A-05-01, Appendix 3) was adopted which, inter alia, raises the assessment rate to US$ 14.184 per cubic meter of well volume. The resolution includes a footnote reflecting that Mexico does not share the view that all the provisions of Resolution A-03-01, which are reaffirmed in Resolution A-05-01, are applicable, especially as regards assessments for small and inactive vessels, because, in Mexico’s view, the resolution that was approved in Antigua and that included these payments, was done to cover a deficit and was applicable for one year only.
AIDCP budget. 1. Background 1
