INTRODUCTION
1. The financial constraint, impeding the implementation of planned or approved activities by the Commission, remains the major difficulty of APFIC. At the Twenty-fifth Session in 1996, the Commission recognized that FAO might not be able to fund all of APFICs activities in future and underlined the need for possible contributions by Members, namely, (1) annual contributions based on an agreed scale, (2) voluntary contribution by participating countries for specific activities, and (3) travel expenses of their delegates attending the sessions of APFIC Committees and Working Parties. The Commission requested Members to discuss these options with their competent authorities for further consideration at its next session.
2. At the Twenty-sixth Session of the Commission in 1998, several delegations were not ready to support the first option, i.e., mandatory annual contribution, while many expressed their support in principle to the second and third options. To facilitate further consideration of this important matter, the Commission agreed to establish an Ad hoc Legal and Financial Working Group to develop a self-sustaining financial mechanism under which APFIC would operate and manage its affairs more effectively.
3. In this connection, the Commission was reminded by FAO that APFIC belonged to the Members and that FAOs role was that of a facilitator and coordinator. It is hoped that the Members would increase their efforts to support the work of APFIC and thus demonstrate their confidence in the Commission.
4. The recent survey on the future direction of APFIC (Document APFIC/LFWG/99/5) showed that 68 percent of the Members agreed that Members should provide contributions to support the activities of the Commission as specified in Article VIII of the Agreement. However, most Members preferred voluntary contributions by participating countries for specific activities than annual contributions.
5. This document outlines, as an example, the provisional scheme and scale of contributions to an autonomous budget that could be established as a means to develop a self-sustaining financial mechanism as directed by the Commission. It was patterned on the agreed principle for similar financial systems adopted by the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC).
CONTRIBUTIONS BY MEMBER STATES TO APFIC
6. At its Twenty-fifth Session, the Commission noted with appreciation that core funding of the APFIC Secretariat would continue to be provided by FAO pursuant to Article VIII.2 of the Agreement, in spite of the financial difficulties being faced by FAO just as in other public international institutions. However, a specific amount for such contribution could not be committed by FAO as its budget is decided by its governing bodies. Although the Committee on Fisheries, at its recent Twenty-third Session in February 1999, strongly recommended that the Council and the Conference should grant a substantially increased share of FAOs Regular Programme to Major Programme 2.3 on Fisheries, the supplementary fund for APFICs activities is not likely to increase much more than the current level.
7. It is therefore essential that extra-funds for APFIC must be sought to ensure effective implementation of the Commissions directives and decisions. Specifically, contributions by Members are required, both in cash and in kind, to support technical activities such as expert consultations on emerging issues, assistance as requested by Member States, collection and dissemination of fishery information and data, analysis of fishery production and trends as well as the state of fishery resources in cooperation with fishery institutions and researchers in the region. The contribution in kind by Members shall cover the costs of their participation at APFIC Sessions. For specific projects, attempt shall be made to collaborate with other regional bodies or donor agencies in their implementation.
8. In order to request for contributions from the Member States, however, amendments to the APFIC Agreement and Rules of Procedure and the setting up of an autonomous budget are required. These imply new obligations for the Members of the Commission and shall enter into force only after acceptance by a two-thirds majority of its membership and for each of them after their own acceptance (Articles II.7 and IX of the APFIC Agreement). The following possible schemes and scales of contributions by APFIC Members are therefore preliminary proposals to facilitate consideration of the Ad hoc Legal and Financial Working Group.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE AUTONOMOUS BUDGET
9. The proposal on the Members contributions assumes that each APFIC member shall contribute annually its share to the autonomous budget in accordance with a scale of contributions to be adopted by the Commission, and that the amount that each member contributes shall be determined in accordance with a scheme to be adopted by the Commission.
10. Two basic assumptions for the proposed contributions are:
(1) The autonomous budget is adopted at each regular session of the Commission on the basis of an annual work programme of APFIC; andTHE BUDGET SCHEME(2) All current members accept the amendments to the APFIC Agreement relating to the provisions for the autonomous budget, and the amended Agreement enters into force for them.
11. It is suggested that each members contribution to the autonomous budget should consist of:
(a) a basic fee that is unrelated to either national wealth, fish production and/or export value; andTHE SCALE OF CONTRIBUTIONS: BASIC CALCULATIONS(b) a charge that reflects the members national wealth, fish production and/or export value.
The Basic Fee
12. The basic fee should be limited so that its payment does not cause too heavy burden on any member, but it should be substantial to secure a minimum basic stable income to the Commission to cover its administrative costs. It is suggested that 10 percent of the total budget will be covered by the payment of the basic fees. The amount shall be divided equally among ALL Members. Thus, in mid-1999, the total number of shares is 20.
The Charge Reflecting National Wealth and Fish Production
13. In order to determine the charge that reflects national wealth and fish production of each member, it is necessary to agree on standard measurement criteria, as proposed in the following paragraphs.
Measuring national wealth14. It is suggested to use a three-year average of the World Bank estimates of per caput GNP as an indication of national wealth. The last year of the three year average in the calendar year occurring three years prior to the year in which the budget is being adopted (for example, a budget for the year 2000, adopted in 1999, will be based on the three year average for the period 1994/96). The per caput GNP shall be weighed according to the economic status of the Members in accordance with the World Banks Classification of Economies and subject to change in the classification thresholds, i.e., for 1996, the criteria used are as follows:
|
a) Low-income countries |
per caput GNP < US$ 785 (Index = 1); |
|
b) Lower middle-income countries |
US$ 3,115 > GNP > US$ 786 (Index = 2); |
|
c) Upper middle-income countries |
US$ 9,636 > GNP > US$ 3,116 (Index = 3); |
|
d) High-income countries |
per caput GNP > US$ 9,637 (Index = 4). |
Measuring fish production15. It is essential to clearly define which fish production is to be measured. It is proposed to include fish produced by capture fisheries in Asia and the Pacific (i.e., FAO major fishing areas 04, 06, 51, 57, 61, 71 and 81) and to accept published FAO statistics as an agreed measurement of the quantities concerned.
16. The difference in price between major groups of species can be substantial. Such differences in value of fish produced should be taken into account in determining members fish production. However, due to the present weakness in collecting and disseminating value data from most Member States, the price index has to be included in the calculations of share allocations at the later stage.
17. The three-year average of fish production, excluding aquaculture, in Asia and the Pacific shall form the basis in estimating the production index of the Members. The volume of production, expressed in percentages of total fishery production in the APFIC region shall be weighed by the following criteria:
|
a) Less than 0.50% |
Index = 0 |
|
b) 0.51-5.00% |
Index = 1 |
|
c) 5.01-10.00% |
Index = 2 |
|
d) 10.01-20.00% |
Index = 3 |
|
e) More than 20% |
Index = 4 |
THE SCALE OF CONTRIBUTION
18. There are various ways of combining the measurement of national wealth and the measurement of fish production. In order to facilitate the consideration on the options, an autonomous budget with an hypothetical amount of US$ 800,000 per annum is presented in Table 3. It is expected that an autonomous APFIC budget of this size would be needed for the Commission to fulfil its mandate in a year.
19. The basic fee, 10% of the total budget, is US$ 80,000. Each member will equally share the annual contribution of US$ 4,000 regardless of national wealth and fish production.
20. For the balance of 90%, two options are proposed:
a) a combined charged based on national wealth or the capacity-to-pay index and the fish production index (Table 3); and21. As many Members of the Commission are leading exporters of fish and fishery products, with a total export value as high as US$ 20,778 million in 1996. The third option is to incorporate export earnings into the allocation of shares for the APFIC autonomous budget. The combined charges are given in Table 5 as an example of this model.b) a split charge based on each index. In this case, it is suggested that the charge for the national wealth covers 40% and the fish produced charge covers the remaining 50% (Table 4).
Table 1. Members share relating to national wealth
APFIC Member |
GNP per capita (US$) |
Capacity-to-pay |
|||
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
Average |
||
Australia |
17 980 |
18 720 |
20 090 |
18 930 |
4 |
Bangladesh |
230 |
240 |
260 |
243 |
1 |
Cambodia |
c1/ |
270 |
300 |
2852/ |
1 |
China |
530 |
620 |
750 |
633 |
1 |
France |
23 470 |
24 990 |
26 270 |
24 910 |
4 |
India |
310 |
340 |
380 |
343 |
1 |
Indonesia |
880 |
980 |
1 080 |
980 |
2 |
Japan |
34 630 |
39 640 |
40 940 |
38 403 |
4 |
Korea, Rep. |
8 220 |
9 700 |
10 610 |
9 510 |
3 |
Malaysia |
3 520 |
3 890 |
4 370 |
3 927 |
3 |
Myanmar |
c |
c |
c |
c |
1 |
Nepal |
200 |
200 |
210 |
203 |
1 |
New Zealand |
13 190 |
14 340 |
15 720 |
14 417 |
4 |
Pakistan |
440 |
460 |
480 |
460 |
1 |
Philippines |
960 |
1 050 |
1 160 |
1 057 |
2 |
Sri Lanka |
640 |
700 |
740 |
693 |
1 |
Thailand |
2 210 |
2 740 |
2 960 |
2 637 |
2 |
United Kingdom |
18 410 |
18 700 |
19 600 |
18 903 |
4 |
Unite States |
25 860 |
26 980 |
28 020 |
26 953 |
4 |
Vietnam |
190 |
240 |
290 |
240 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
Source: The World Bank Atlas 1996, 1997, 1998. |
||
|
|
|
Notes: |
1/ |
c. Estimated to be low-income ($ 725 or less). |
|
|
|
|
2/ |
Figure corresponding to the average of the two years for which
data are available. |
Table 2. Fish Production Index for the APFIC Member States, based on nominal catches from capture fisheries in the Asia-Pacific region, 1994-19961/
APFIC Member |
Fish production (x 1 000 mt) |
Production Index |
||||
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
Average 1994-96 |
% |
||
Australia |
201 |
205 |
192 |
199 |
0.52 |
1 |
Bangladesh |
821 |
851 |
874 |
849 |
2.21 |
1 |
Cambodia |
95 |
103 |
95 |
98 |
0.25 |
0 |
China |
10 867 |
12 563 |
14 222 |
12 551 |
32.62 |
4 |
France2/ |
94 |
96 |
84 |
91 |
0.24 |
0 |
India |
3 210 |
3 220 |
3 492 |
3 307 |
8.60 |
2 |
Indonesia |
3 320 |
3 509 |
3 730 |
3 520 |
9.13 |
2 |
Japan |
6 617 |
5 967 |
5 964 |
6 183 |
16.07 |
3 |
Korea, Rep. |
2 358 |
2 320 |
2 414 |
2 364 |
6.14 |
2 |
Malaysia |
1 068 |
1 112 |
1 131 |
1 104 |
2.87 |
1 |
Myanmar |
751 |
758 |
805 |
771 |
2.00 |
1 |
Nepal |
7 |
11 |
11 |
10 |
0.03 |
0 |
New Zealand |
442 |
544 |
421 |
469 |
1.22 |
1 |
Pakistan |
537 |
527 |
537 |
534 |
1.39 |
1 |
Philippines |
1 852 |
1 862 |
1 790 |
1 835 |
4.77 |
1 |
Sri Lanka |
221 |
229 |
225 |
225 |
0.58 |
1 |
Thailand |
3 013 |
3 202 |
3 138 |
3118 |
8.10 |
2 |
United Kingdom |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Unite States3/ |
369 |
389 |
367 |
375 |
0.97 |
1 |
Vietnam |
915 |
889 |
811 |
872 |
2.27 |
1 |
Total |
36 758 |
38 357 |
40 303 |
38 475 |
100.00 |
25 |
Notes: |
1/ |
FAO (1998). FAO Fishery Statistics Yearbook 1996. Vol. 82,
Capture Production. Table A-2. |
|
|
|
|
2/ |
Only nominal catches from Fishing Area 51. |
|
|
|
|
3/ |
Only nominal catches from Fishing Areas 71, 77 and
87. |
Table 3. Scale of contributions to hypothetical APFIC autonomous budget of US$ 800,000 - Option a (combined charge)
APFIC Member |
Capacity-to-pay Index1/ |
Production Index2/ |
Total Index |
Share of 90% budget |
Total contribution in US$ (plus 10%, basic fee) |
|
in % |
in US$ |
|||||
Australia |
4 |
1 |
5 |
7.14 |
51 408 |
55 408 |
Bangladesh |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2.86 |
20 592 |
24 592 |
Cambodia |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1.43 |
10 296 |
14 296 |
China |
1 |
4 |
5 |
7.14 |
51 408 |
55 408 |
France |
4 |
0 |
4 |
5.71 |
41 112 |
45 112 |
India |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4.29 |
30 888 |
34 888 |
Indonesia |
2 |
2 |
4 |
5.71 |
41 112 |
45 112 |
Japan |
4 |
3 |
7 |
10.00 |
72 000 |
76 000 |
Korea, Rep. |
3 |
2 |
5 |
7.14 |
51 408 |
55 408 |
Malaysia |
3 |
1 |
4 |
5.71 |
41 112 |
45 112 |
Myanmar |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2.86 |
20 592 |
24 592 |
Nepal |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1.43 |
10 296 |
14 296 |
New Zealand |
4 |
1 |
5 |
7.14 |
51 408 |
55 408 |
Pakistan |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2.86 |
20 592 |
24 592 |
Philippines |
2 |
1 |
3 |
4.29 |
30 888 |
34 888 |
Sri Lanka |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2.86 |
20 592 |
24 592 |
Thailand |
2 |
2 |
4 |
5.71 |
41 112 |
45 112 |
United Kingdom |
4 |
- |
4 |
5.71 |
41 112 |
45 112 |
Unite States |
4 |
1 |
5 |
7.14 |
51 408 |
55 408 |
Vietnam |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2.86 |
20 592 |
24 592 |
Total |
45 |
25 |
70 |
100.00 |
720 000 |
800 000 |
Notes: |
1/ |
From Table 1. |
|
|
|
|
2/ |
From Table 2. |
Table 4. Scale of contributions to hypothetical APFIC autonomous budget of US$ 800,000 - Option b (split charge)
APFIC Member |
Capacity-to-pay Index |
Share of 40% budget |
Production Index |
Share of 50% budget |
Total contribution1/ (in US$) |
||
in % |
in US$ |
in % |
in US$ |
||||
Australia |
4 |
8.89 |
28 448 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
48 448 |
Bangladesh |
1 |
2.22 |
7 104 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
27 104 |
Cambodia |
1 |
2.22 |
7 104 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 104 |
China |
1 |
2.22 |
7 104 |
4 |
16.0 |
64 000 |
75 104 |
France |
4 |
8.89 |
28 448 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
32 448 |
India |
1 |
2.22 |
7 104 |
2 |
8.0 |
32 000 |
43 104 |
Indonesia |
2 |
4.44 |
14 208 |
2 |
8.0 |
32 000 |
50 208 |
Japan |
4 |
8.89 |
28 448 |
3 |
12.0 |
48 000 |
80 448 |
Korea, Rep. |
3 |
6.67 |
21 344 |
2 |
8.0 |
32 000 |
57 344 |
Malaysia |
3 |
6.67 |
21 344 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
41 344 |
Myanmar |
1 |
2.22 |
7 104 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
27 104 |
Nepal |
1 |
2.22 |
7 104 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 104 |
New Zealand |
4 |
8.89 |
28 448 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
48 448 |
Pakistan |
1 |
2.22 |
7 104 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
27 104 |
Philippines |
2 |
4.44 |
14 208 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
34 208 |
Sri Lanka |
1 |
2.22 |
7 104 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
27 104 |
Thailand |
2 |
4.44 |
14 208 |
2 |
8.0 |
32 000 |
50 208 |
United Kingdom |
4 |
8.89 |
28 448 |
- |
0 |
0 |
32 448 |
Unite States |
4 |
8.89 |
28 448 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
48 448 |
Vietnam |
1 |
2.22 |
7 104 |
1 |
4.0 |
16 000 |
27 104 |
Total |
45 |
100.0 |
320 000 |
25 |
100.00 |
400 000 |
800 000 |
Notes: |
1/ |
Including a basic fee allocated equally among the Member at
US$ 4 000. |
Table 5. Scale of contributions (Option a) taking into account of the export earnings
APFIC Member |
Total value of exports (in US$ million)1/ |
Export Index2/ |
Capacity Index3/ |
Production Index4/ |
Total Index |
Share of contribution5/ (90%) |
||||
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
Average 1994-96 |
% |
||||||
Australia |
758 |
855 |
798 |
804 |
3.86 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
6.25 |
Bangladesh |
287 |
287 |
255 |
276 |
1.32 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
3.12 |
Cambodia |
18 |
14 |
23 |
18 |
0.09 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1.04 |
China |
2 320 |
2 835 |
2 857 |
2 671 |
12.82 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
8 |
8.33 |
France |
910 |
993 |
1 003 |
969 |
4.65 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
5 |
5.21 |
India |
1 125 |
1 105 |
978 |
1 069 |
5.13 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
5.21 |
Indonesia |
1 583 |
1 667 |
1 678 |
1 643 |
7.88 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
6.25 |
Japan |
743 |
713 |
709 |
722 |
3.47 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
8 |
8.33 |
Korea, Rep. |
1 411 |
1 565 |
1 513 |
1 496 |
7.18 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
7.29 |
Malaysia |
325 |
335 |
327 |
329 |
1.58 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
5.21 |
Myanmar |
62 |
57 |
98 |
72 |
0.35 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2.08 |
Nepal |
... |
71 |
... |
71 |
0.34 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1.04 |
New Zealand |
692 |
811 |
816 |
773 |
3.71 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
6.25 |
Pakistan |
153 |
144 |
141 |
146 |
0.70 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
3.12 |
Philippines |
533 |
502 |
437 |
491 |
2.36 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
4.17 |
Sri Lanka |
32 |
56 |
67 |
52 |
0.25 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2.08 |
Thailand |
4 190 |
4 449 |
4 118 |
4 252 |
20.41 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
7.29 |
United Kingdom |
1 180 |
1 195 |
1 308 |
1 228 |
5.89 |
2 |
4 |
- |
6 |
6.25 |
United States |
3 230 |
3 384 |
3 148 |
3 254 |
15.62 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
8 |
8.33 |
Total |
20 036 |
21 551 |
20 778 |
20 836 |
100.00 |
26 |
45 |
25 |
96 |
100.00 |
Notes: |
1/ |
FAO (1998). FAO Fishery Statistics Yearbook 1996. Vol. 83,
Commodities. Table A-5. |
|
|
|
|
2/ |
Based on the percentage of total export value (1994-96): 0 for
0.01-0.50%; 1 for 0.51-5.00%; 2 for 5.01-10.00%; and 3 for 10% or
more. |
|
|
|
|
3/ |
From Table 1. |
|
|
|
|
4/ |
From Table 2 |
|
|
|
|
5/ |
Excluding basic fee of US$ 4 000 each. |