Common use of AIDCP budget Clause in Contracts

AIDCP budget. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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 suggestion by the United States, the Parties agreed to ask the secretariat to prepare an example of a formula, linking budget number and vessel assessment, and explaining the choices/assumptions made and their impacts on the results, perhaps even highlighting the policy decisions that are made within the formula. The United States agreed to submit further guidance for the paper in writing. Many Parties raised the urgent need to offer fair, competitive salaries to observers in order to have an observer pool large enough to meet demand, retain experienced observers, and to reduce incentives for possible corruption.

AIDCP budget. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ Wade▇, of from the Secretariat, presented Document MOP-33-06 noting again the AIDCP budget proposal for 2023, which was not adopted by consensus at the previous Meeting of the Parties held in Phoenix, Arizona, in July 2022. She recommended a US$ 3,386,800 budget and reiterated the Secretariat's recommendation to raise the com- pensation for IATTC observers by US$ 10 for 2023 and 2024. This would entail increasing the vessel assessment from US$ 14.95 to US$ 15.95, that this year is, a US$ 1 increase per cubic meter of well volume. On the program had other hand, ▇▇. ▇▇▇ recalled the existence, as of 31 December 2021, of an accumulated surplus of US$ 2,430,492, as well as, as of 30 June 2022, of an accumulated amount of pending arrears of US$ 671,548 for outstanding vessel assessments from Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela. This presentation led to the following comments from the participants: • Regarding overdue assessment payments, Venezuela assured that it was taking action to pay in full the outstanding contributions of the nine vessels under its flag, understanding that the debt would remain even in the case of a change of flag. This AIDCP principle and practice should be formalized through a decision or resolution or the amendment of an instrument already in force. • Regarding the surplus, and the participants were generally interested in learning if it results from accu- mulated late payments of assessments in arrears or if it reflects savings in the implementation of the budget. It was clarified that essentially it is not necessary a matter of savings but rather of the accumulation of overdue assessment payments. • Regarding the recommendation of additional compensation to increase vessel quotas. Howeverobservers, the current situation is extraordinary and unlikely to be repeated several delegations, just 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 previous meeting, stated their difficulty in accepting any increase in quotas, particularly due 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 mannereconomic crisis they are facing. Some delegations congratulated reiterated their proposal for this increase to be taken from the Secretariat for surplus. This was once again opposed by Mexico, which reminded attendees about its position to not use the surplus reached to cover current expenses. Also, it recalled its proposal to use this yearsurplus for a research project, noting such as the study of a potential cow-calf separation in dolphin populations. On the other hand, Nicaragua requested that reflects better management efforts. Others suggested that more information be prepared on scenarios on how to cover the expense resulting from the proposed compensation, without excluding the potential use of the surplus was due for this purpose, in order to be able to make a decision at the irregular circumstance next Meeting 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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 cases2023. 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 Meeting 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 suggestion by the United States, the Parties agreed to ask the secretariat convene a videoconference in December to prepare an example of a formula, linking budget number and vessel assessment, and explaining the choices/assumptions made and their impacts discuss this issue based on the resultsinformation requested by Nicaragua, perhaps even highlighting including the policy decisions that are made within possibility of partially using the formulasurplus and also doing so for research purposes. The United States agreed Leaving aside the issues of surplus and additional compensation to submit further guidance observers for discussion at the videoconference meeting in December, the Meeting of the Parties approved the budget presented for the paper in writing. Many Parties raised the urgent need to offer fair, competitive salaries to observers in order to have an observer pool large enough to meet demand, retain experienced observers, and to reduce incentives for possible corruptionamount indicated above.

AIDCP budget. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ Wade▇▇, of the Secretariat, presented Document MOP-33MOP-29-06 noting that this year on the program had a surplusAIDCP budget, and it is not necessary to increase vessel quotas. However, highlighting 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 contributionsprogram’s deficit. The Secretariat depends of was recommending an increase in vessel assessments from US$ 14.95 to US$ 17.61/m3, in order to resolve the financial results of the previous year to forecast future needscurrent deficit, and the direct costs implementation of observers on board can fluctuate depending on one of the number options described in the document for improving the future financial stability of trips made, the cost of travel, AIDCP. The European Union stated that it had difficulty in understanding 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 delaybudget presented, and the full payment recalled that it had been agreed to carry out an evaluation of all vessels contributions in a timely manner. Some delegations congratulated 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 the surplus reached this year, noting that reflects better management effortsevaluation were not approved. Others suggested The United States noted that the surplus was due 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 irregular circumstance budgetary problems of the activation IATTC and payment of assessments by vessels national observer programs. The United States commented that were added to the register, but which utilized few services, national programs 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ vessel - 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 outstanding payments despite it was reflaggedposition 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. Several Parties highlighted the difficulties to plan Mexico also noted that linking 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 casesto an economic indicator could be positive. 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 concept 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 linking vessel assessment rates to the amount of the approved budget, which would help provide greater stability and predictability assessments to the AIDCP budget process and alleviate the need for exhaustive reviews each year. Following (option 5.5.2 in document MOP-29-06) generated a suggestion by the United States, great deal of interest among the Parties agreed to ask and was generally supported, and the secretariat Secretariat was asked to prepare an example a simulation of its application in practice for consideration at the next Meeting of the Parties. At the request of the Parties, a formula, linking budget number and vessel assessmentlist of vessels with payments to the IDCP outstanding was presented (Ap- pendix 2), and explaining the choices/assumptions made Secretariat was asked to send letters to the Parties in question requesting payment. Finally, no decision was reached regarding the budget and their impacts on a possible increase in the results, perhaps even highlighting the policy decisions that are made within the formula. The United States agreed to submit further guidance for the paper in writing. Many Parties raised the urgent need to offer fair, competitive salaries to observers in order to have an observer pool large enough to meet demand, retain experienced observersvessel assessments, and to reduce incentives for possible corruptionthe matter was postponed until the next Meeting of the Parties in October 2014.

AIDCP budget. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ vessel that made its outstanding payments despite it was reflagged. Several Parties highlighted the difficulties to plan the budget as a result ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Director of the changing nature IATTC, again presented a budget proposal for 2024, which could not be adopted by consensus at the previous Meeting of the fisheryParties in Victoria, B.C., Canada, in July 2023. He referred to the new, revised and updated document (AIDCP-47-01) which contains, in addition to this pro- posal, more detailed information on the financial activities in 2022 as well as on the expected expenditures for 2023. He emphasized the way in which the costs of staff work were allocated prior to 2022. These costs were allocated in a simplified manner that did not take into account a time allocation that more accurately reflects the time spent by headquarters and regional office staff on the AIDCP, without charging the AIDCP budget for this work. Correcting for this situation resulted in a deficit for 2022, 2023, and also in the 2024 projection. In view of this situation, the mobility Director mentioned four possible solutions: • Review of vessel projected expenditures for 2024; • Increase contributions to the AIDCP budget; • Increase the percentage of the IATTC's contribution to the AIDCP budget; • Use the surplus accumulated through 2021 to avoid a deficit in 2024 and to offset the previous ones. The Director also recalled the need to increase the remuneration of observers, as this had not been done for many years, despite a significant increase in the regional register and payment arrears in some casescost of living, which makes it more difficult to recruit new, qualified observers. The European Union noted delegation of Guatemala stressed that the Parties were approving two issues needed to maintain an assessment rate and collect and spend the money that would result, and that what was missing was be resolved: the approval of the 2024 budget and the correction of the way the budget was being executed. It expressed reservations about the possibility of covering deficits with surpluses and recalled that some delegations had already objected to the use of surpluses for current expenditure. The Mexican delegation stressed the need not to approve a budget amount based on projected needsthat was known to be in deficit and requested that the Secretariat systematically review expenditures to identify all possible savings. Guate- mala, for its part, requested that this exercise be supplemented by projections of what the expenses would be if different percentages of the funds budgeted for the IATTC's contribution to the AIDCP were used (for example, 50%/50% instead of the current 30%/70%). In response, response to 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 Secretariat's comment that it had already conducted this exercise and the EU supported further exploration of a mechanism to directly link the vessel assessment rates to that the amount of potential savings identified was insignificant, the Meeting of the Parties identified the following possibili- ties: • Hold the October AIDCP meetings in a virtual format; • Have the industry pay for the costs associated with conducting AIDCP captain training seminars; • Cancel the planned purchase of a vehicle for one of the field offices. After an intense discussion, the Meeting of the Parties exceptionally approved budgetthe use of the surplus to avoid the deficit that would result from the proposed budget for 2024. All other uses of the surplus, which would help provide greater stability includ- ing in relation to the deficits observed in 2022 and predictability 2023, will be subject to the financial rules and procedures to be developed and recommended by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Financial Strengthening of the AIDCP, as established in Resolution A-23-01. In conclusion, the Meeting of the Parties decided: • To approve a US$ 3,583,993 budget for 2024. • To establish an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Financial Strengthening of the AIDCP, through the adoption of Resolution A-23-01. • To commission an audit of the AIDCP budget process and alleviate to allocate US$ 30,000 for this purpose in the need for exhaustive reviews each year2024 budget. Following a suggestion by • Request the United States, Secretariat to: o Provide the Parties agreed to ask the secretariat to prepare an example of a formula, linking budget number and vessel assessment, and explaining the choices/assumptions made and their impacts with monthly reports on the resultsexpenditure exercise in 2024, perhaps even highlighting beginning with the policy decisions that are made within first report on 15 February 2024. o Report by mid-November 2023 on the formula. The United States agreed to submit further guidance for the paper in writing. Many Parties raised the urgent need to offer fair, competitive salaries to observers in order to have an observer pool large enough to meet demand, retain experienced observers, and to reduce incentives for possible corruptionmonthly projection of expected expenditures.

AIDCP budget. ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ Wade▇, of from the Secretariat, presented Document MOP-33MOP-35-06 noting on the AIDCP budget. She pointed out that this year the program had a surplussurplus of $1,438,312 USD by December 31, 2016. This surplus should be regarded with caution because vessel assessments have not been increased in more than a decade and it is not necessary the AIDCP has operated with deficit during several consecutive years. For 2018, the Secretariat recommended a budget of $3,319,906 USD, which includes the contribution of 30% by the IATTC and the contributions per vessel established in Resolution A-13-01. An intense debate arose when Venezuela suggested that the current surplus should be used to increase vessel quotasthe observers’ salaries. However, the current situation It was recalled that there is extraordinary a shortage of observers because they tend to migrate to other jobs onshore with higher and unlikely to be repeated as overdue vessel payments for considerable amounts were received, so an increase might be needed in the near futurefixed salaries. It was emphasized that, furthermore, the observers’ duties have increased since they are requested to perform additional tasks that is difficult to project future AIDCP budgetary needs and take into account the unpaid contributions. The Secretariat depends are not remunerated (for example, gathering data on infractions of the financial results IATTC regulations, among others). There was an agreement on the need of the previous year increase, but not on its terms. Some countries said the surplus should also be used to forecast future needs, and increase the direct costs salary of observers on board can fluctuate depending on the number from national programs, not only of trips made, the cost of travel, the availability of local AIDCP 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 They were told that the surplus was due only corresponds to the irregular circumstance AIDCP budget and its observer program. Several coordinators of national programs attending the activation and payment meeting expressed their concern over the impact of assessments by vessels that were added only increasing the AIDCP observers’ salaries including the potential migration of observers from national programs 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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 yearAIDCP program. The United States recalled that a proposal on observer safety at sea was still pending and the EU supported further exploration of a mechanism to directly link the vessel assessment rates to the amount mentioned that part of the approved budgetsurplus could be used to buy safety equipment for the observers, which, as noted by the Secretariat, would cost approximately $450,000 USD, but only considering AIDCP observers, which generated another discussion on whether to use these resources for national observers as well. Since it was not possible to reach an agreement on this matter, it was agreed that the discussion on the use of the surplus would help provide greater stability and predictability to be addressed once again during the AIDCP budget process and alleviate the need for exhaustive reviews each year. Following a suggestion by the United States, 36th meeting of the Parties agreed to ask the secretariat to prepare an example in October, based on specific proposals, including in terms of a formula, linking budget number specific amounts and vessel assessment, and explaining the choices/assumptions made and their impacts on the results, perhaps even highlighting the policy decisions that are made within the formula. The United States agreed to submit further guidance for the paper in writing. Many Parties raised the urgent need to offer fair, competitive salaries to observers in order to have an observer pool large enough to meet demand, retain experienced observers, and to reduce incentives for possible corruptionfigures.

AIDCP budget. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ Wade▇-Wade, of the Secretariat, presented Document MOP-33MOP-27-06 noting that this year 06, highlighting the program had a surplusneed for an increase in vessel assessments of US$ 2.66 per cubic meter (m3) of well volume, and it is not necessary to increase vessel quotas. However, balance 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 AIDCP budget in 2014 while still providing the near futureplanned level of coverage. It was emphasized that is difficult the extraordinary additional assessment of US$ 1.00/m3 agreed in 2012 to project future AIDCP budgetary needs defray the accumulated deficit of the IATTC program did not achieve its aim because, at the request of the national programs, it was divid- ed equally among the IATTC program and take into account the unpaid contributionsnational programs. The Secretariat depends of Parties discussed the financial results of budget, the previous year observer program and the projected deficit at length. The matters discussed included the following: 1. The European Union considered that the information provided was not sound enough to forecast future needstake a deci- sion, 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 an audit of expenditures might be appropriate in order 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 dispel doubts re- ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ vessel that made its outstanding payments despite it was reflagged. Several Parties highlighted both the difficulties to plan expenditures and 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 casesscenarios presented. The European Union noted was reminded that all expenditures are audited annually, and the Parties were approving corresponding report is delivered to maintain the Parties. The EU clarified that it was not a financial audit of incurred expenses it was demanding, but an in-depth assessment rate of the efficiency of the organization, of costs and collect and spend of possible savings. 2. Asked whether staff salaries had increased, the money Secretariat responded that would resultbase salaries remained fro- zen, and that what the only increases were a reflection of the increased cost of insurance. 3. Some Parties again proposed that the IATTC should contribute more than 30% of the AIDCP budget, since the work of the IATTC benefits in great measure from the services of the observer program. They pointed out that only about half the information collected by the observers is for AIDCP purposes, the rest is for IATTC research and management programs.. 4. Some Parties stressed the importance of increasing observer salaries, since it is currently difficult to recruit observers in Ecuador and Panama due to the low level of the salaries. It was missing was proposed that the approval national programs should hold a meeting to consider a possible standardization of a salaries. 5. Some Parties proposed that the level of required observer coverage be reduced from 100% in order to reduce costs. 6. Some Parties also proposed that modern technology, such as video cameras, could also be used to do part of the observers’ work and therefore save costs. The European Union asked the Secretariat to in- vestigate this possibility. 7. Some Parties suggested uniting the AIDCP and IATTC budgets to avoid discussions about budget amount based on projected needscoverage from one to the other and seek greater efficiency in expenditures. 8. In responseanswer to a question, the secretariat presented Secretariat clarified that the expenses IATTC transshipment program is independ- ent of the first months of 2016 along with a projection IATTC budget and is paid for costs for the remainder of the yearby five Members who participate in it, and its functioning and operation use little Secretariat time. 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 suggestion by the United StatesFinally, the Parties agreed to ask that all vessels, active and inactive on the secretariat to prepare IATTC Regional Vessel Register, would pay an example extraordinary assessment for 2014 of a formulaUS$ 2.00/m3, linking budget number and vessel assessmentpayable at the same time as the regular assessment (1 December 2013), and explaining would be aimed exclusively at resolving the choices/assumptions made and their impacts on deficit in the results, perhaps even highlighting observer program administered by the policy decisions that are made within IATTC staff. This was approved under the formulacondition to carry-out an organi- zational assessment in conjunction with the IATTC one. The United States agreed to submit further guidance for the paper This decision is reflected in writing. Many Parties raised the urgent need to offer fair, competitive salaries to observers in order to have an observer pool large enough to meet demand, retain experienced observers, and to reduce incentives for possible corruptionResolution C-13-01 (Appendix 2).

AIDCP budget. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ Wade, of the Secretariat, presented Document MOP-33MOP-31-06 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, etcAIDCP budget. 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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 She noted that the Secretariat was asking the Parties were approving to maintain approve an assessment rate and collect and spend the money that would result, and that what was missing was the approval increase 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 rate from US$ 14.95 to US$ 17.61/m3, which would cover the budget for 2016 and should prevent significant budget shortfalls for at least a few years, assuming relative stability in the purse-seine fleet. The document also asked Parties again to link the annual vessel assessment 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 a given year. Following a suggestion by the United States, the Parties agreed to ask the secretariat to prepare The Secretariat had provided an example of a formula, linking budget number and vessel assessmenthow this system could be implemented at the 30th Meeting of the Parties, and explaining many Parties had expressed support for such an approach as a way to improve the choices/assumptions made financial stability of the AIDCP and their impacts avoid the accumulation of large deficits. Venezuela asked about the increase of more than 200% in the costs of training observers and about the vessels that had not paid, and stated that the amount corresponding to those payments in arrears should be presented as accounts receivable. The Secretariat answered that there are US$ 351,181 outstanding in pending vessel assessments, and that unbudgeted observer training courses were held because there were not enough active observers to cover the needs of the program. Various delegations indicated that pressure should be put on the results, perhaps even highlighting the policy decisions that are made within the formula. The United States agreed to submit further guidance for the paper vessels in writing. Many Parties raised the urgent need to offer fair, competitive salaries to observers arrears in order to have an observer pool large enough get them to meet demand, retain experienced observerspay. The Secretariat noted that the AIDCP establishes that it is the Parties’ obligation to collect the contributions from its vessels, and thus it should be the Parties themselves that should apply that pressure. The European Union asked why, if the approved budget has been held at the same level for several years, without any increase, was there an annual variation in the amount of the 30% contribution from the IATTC budget. The Secretariat responded that the variation was a result of the fact that the amount of that 30% contribution was calculated at the end of the year on the basis of real costs, and not on the basis of the amount of the approved budget. The European Union reiterated its inability to reduce incentives approve any budget increase until the review of the IATTC and AIDCP was carried out in accordance with Resolution C-14-09. They noted their commitment to contribute € 100,000 for possible corruptionthis exercise, and indicated that, unless other Parties could also consider special contributions for this effort, any costs for the review beyond that amount should be covered by the IATTC and AIDCP budgets.