Second South Pacific Albacore Allocation Workshop: Full Annotated Agenda

Background:
Chair’s recommendation from SPAA01 said that agreement on an implementing measure for the SPA Management Procedure is a high priority. While substantial progress was made on data, implementation principles and areas of convergence, the central allocation questions remained unresolved. SPAA02 should therefore be framed as a decision-focused follow-up workshop intended to further narrow allocation options and prepare matters for consideration by WCPFC23. SPAA01 specifically identified a further virtual workshop as part of the intersessional pathway. Given the limited time available at SPAA02, the meeting should focus on narrowing the outstanding allocation options for consideration by WCPFC23. 

SPAA02 action:
The Chair should recall the original TOR objective, namely preparatory work toward agreement on proportional shares while adequately taking into account Articles 8, 10(3) and 30, and emphasise that SPAA02 should build on, rather than reopen, areas of convergence reached at SPAA01. 

Background:
SPAA02 is a virtual workshop and has a more focused agenda than SPAA01. 

SPAA02 action:
Agree that discussions focus primarily on unresolved allocation questions and on producing clear options or pathways for WCPFC23.

Background:
SPAA01 established several elements for further allocation discussions, including a fixed data baseline through 2024, catch volume in metric tonnes as the primary metric, an allocation scope south of 10°S excluding the EEZs of Tokelau and Tuvalu, recognition of Participating Territories as coastal States, and broad support for a species-specific and non-precedential framework with transferability and flexibility. Key allocation questions remained unresolved, including the allocation framework, any EEZ/high seas split, application and weighting of Article 10(3) criteria, and apportionment of fishing opportunities among CCMs. Subsequently, SC22 confirmed the first SPA MP output of an annual catch limit of 56,096 mt for 2027–2029 and found no scientific impediment to implementation, providing a defined quantitative basis for SPAA02 allocation discussions.

SPAA02 action:
SPAA02 should take note of the SPAA01 areas of convergence, the MP-generated annual catch limit of 56,096 mt for 2027–2029, and any relevant TCC22 outcomes, without reopening matters already addressed through SPAA01 or SC22. Discussions should focus on the outstanding allocation questions, particularly the choice of allocation framework, any EEZ/high seas split, application of Article 10(3) criteria, and the approach to apportioning fishing opportunities among CCMs, with the aim of establishing a clear basis for further development of the allocation framework.

Background:
SPAA01 requested further SSP information on the treatment and attribution of chartered-vessel catches, domestic and licensed foreign-fleet catches within EEZs, and additional flag-based catch summaries south of 10°S and 20°S. While some information was provided during SPAA01, further work was required on certain data products. SPAA01 also agreed to a fixed allocation dataset through 2024, excluding amendments or new information submitted after 30 April 2026.

SPAA02 action:
The SSP should present any outstanding data products developed since SPAA01 and clarify their relevance to the allocation scenarios, without reopening the agreed fixed data baseline. SPAA02 should identify any remaining data gaps only where they materially affect the comparison or narrowing of allocation options under Agenda Item 4.

Background:
SPAA01 considered the FFA zone-based proposal, including a 75% EEZ/25% high seas split, and the US implementation proposal. Coastal State CCMs and Participating Territories supported a zone-based framework, several non-coastal CCMs expressed willingness to consider it, and one CCM supported retaining a CCM-based approach. CCMs were encouraged to submit new or refined proposals before SPAA02 to facilitate comparison and narrowing of allocation options.

SPAA02 action:
CCMs should present new or refined proposals, focusing on the proposed allocation framework, treatment and any split of EEZ and high seas components, application of Article 10(3) criteria, reference period and catch history, treatment of Participating Territories, and the method for translating these elements into CCM fishing opportunities or proportional shares. The objective is to establish a clear and comparable basis for narrowing allocation options under Agenda Item 4, rather than considering detailed implementation arrangements.

Background:
SPAA01 showed that differences among CCMs were not limited to the high-level EEZ/high seas split. CCMs also needed to understand how each component would be apportioned into fishing opportunities among CCMs. The Chair stressed that the criteria, principles and processes for apportioning each component would need to be understood, irrespective of the allocation framework ultimately selected. 

SPAA02 action:
Clarify the key differences and common elements among the proposals, rather than negotiating each proposal independently. The Chair should identify areas of convergence and the remaining differences that need to be carried forward into the consolidated options for consideration under Agenda Item 4.

Background:
SPAA01 tasked the Chair to consolidate CCM proposals and advice into a set of allocation scenarios, options and criteria for consideration at SPAA02. SPAA01 also considered illustrative scenarios, including different EEZ/high seas splits, reference periods, catch history and Article 10(3) considerations, supported by the SSP dashboard tool. The first operational run of the SPA MP produced an annual catch limit of 56,096 mt for 2027–2029, providing a quantitative basis for illustrating allocation options. This agenda item aims to establish a common analytical basis for comparing and narrowing allocation options under Agenda Items 4.2 and 4.3.

SPAA02 action:
The Chair should present a limited set of consolidated and comparable allocation scenarios based on CCM proposals and advice under Agenda Item 3. Each scenario should identify the proposed allocation framework, EEZ/high seas treatment and split where applicable, allocation criteria including catch history and Article 10(3) considerations, and indicative EEZ/high seas allocations and CCM-level fishing opportunities or proportional shares where feasible. The scenarios should use the MP-generated annual catch limit of 56,096 mt for 2027–2029, where appropriate, to illustrate quantitative implications and facilitate narrowing of allocation options under Agenda Items 4.2 and 4.3.

Background:
SPAA01 considered zone-based, flag/CCM-based and hybrid allocation frameworks, including possible arrangements for coastal State CCMs to receive high seas fishing opportunities. All coastal State and Participating Territory CCMs supported a zone-based framework comprising EEZ and high seas allocations, while several non-coastal State CCMs expressed willingness to consider this approach, subject to further clarification. One CCM preferred retaining a CCM-based option. Despite some convergence, the choice of allocation framework remained unresolved and requires further consideration at SPAA02.

SPAA02 action:
Building on the consolidated scenarios under Agenda Item 4.1 and areas of convergence identified at SPAA01, SPAA02 should seek to narrow the allocation frameworks for consideration at WCPFC23. Discussions should focus on practical differences in how each framework would allocate the MP-generated catch limit, address EEZ and high seas fishing opportunities, apply relevant allocation criteria, and determine indicative CCM-level proportional shares or fishing opportunities, rather than revisit general positions on allocation approaches.

Background:
SPAA01 distinguished between high-level allocation, including any EEZ/high seas split, and subsequent apportionment of fishing opportunities among CCMs. Key unresolved issues included the magnitude of the split, application and weighting of Article 10(3) criteria, reference periods and treatment of catch history, and methods for apportioning each component. Different views also emerged on sequencing, with some CCMs favouring agreement on the high-level split before apportionment, while others preferred developing indicative CCM-level fishing opportunities first or in parallel to clarify the implications of proposed allocations.

SPAA02 action:
Building on Agenda Items 4.1 and 4.2, SPAA02 should seek to narrow options for the EEZ/high seas split and apportionment of each component, including reference periods, treatment and weighting of catch history, application of Article 10(3) criteria alongside relevant Articles 8 and 30 considerations, and treatment of Participating Territories. Discussions should also consider individual CCM-level, subregional/block or combined apportionment approaches, and whether high-level allocation and apportionment should proceed sequentially or in parallel. Where agreement on proportional shares is not achievable, SPAA02 should identify the remaining options and issues requiring resolution at WCPFC23.

Background:
SPAA01 expressed broad support for transferability and flexibility mechanisms, including temporary transfers and catch reconciliation, while recognizing that detailed arrangements would depend on the agreed allocation framework. Outstanding issues included transfers between EEZ and high seas components, transparency, reporting, reconciliation and safeguards against double counting. Flexibility was also considered important to address potential constraints on mixed-species fisheries, including SPA becoming a “choke” species. SPAA01 further supported consideration of phased or transitional implementation, subject to formal testing against the SPA MP before adoption.

SPAA02 action:
SPAA02 should focus on how transferability, flexibility and possible transitional arrangements would affect the feasibility and design of allocation options under Agenda Items 4.2 and 4.3. Discussions should consider the scope of permitted transfers, including between EEZ and high seas components, basic accounting and reconciliation requirements to prevent double counting, and the potential need for transitional arrangements. Detailed implementation and MCS matters should be addressed only where necessary to narrow allocation options, recognizing that relevant MCS issues were identified for further consideration through TCC and any transitional arrangements would require MP testing.

Background: 
The SPAA TOR specifically tasks the Workshop with narrowing allocation options for consideration by WCPFC23. While SPAA01 identified possible allocation frameworks, criteria and approaches, key issues remained unresolved, including the EEZ/high seas split, choice of allocation framework, application of Article 10(3) criteria, and apportionment of fishing opportunities among CCMs. SPAA02 should therefore move beyond identifying possible approaches and develop a manageable and clearly defined set of allocation options for WCPFC23 consideration.

SPAA02 action:
Based on discussions under Agenda Item 4, SPAA02 should identify allocation options to be retained or excluded, taking into account the level of CCM support, and agree on a narrowed set of options for consideration by WCPFC23. Where feasible, each retained option should clearly identify the proposed allocation framework, EEZ/high seas components, allocation criteria and apportionment approach, including their implications for indicative CCM-level proportional shares or fishing opportunities.

Background: 
SPAA01 identified areas of convergence while leaving key allocation issues unresolved, including the EEZ/high seas split, choice of allocation framework, weighting and application of Article 10(3) criteria, and apportionment of fishing opportunities among CCMs. Clearly distinguishing areas of agreement or substantial convergence from outstanding issues would help WCPFC23 focus its consideration on matters requiring Commission-level decisions.

SPAA02 action:
The Chair should summarize and seek confirmation of matters agreed or substantially converged at SPAA01 and SPAA02, issues where options have been narrowed but remain unresolved, and specific matters requiring decisions at WCPFC23. The summary should also identify any additional technical information or analysis needed before WCPFC23, clearly distinguishing agreed outcomes from remaining alternatives to provide a focused basis for Commission consideration.

Background:
The SPAA TOR requires the Workshop to discuss steps towards reaching agreement on proportional shares. SPAA01 recognized the need for further intersessional work, including additional proposals, technical analysis and continued allocation discussions. Following SPAA02, the remaining work should be clearly defined to enable WCPFC23 to progress from narrowed allocation options towards agreement on proportional shares and their incorporation, as appropriate, into arrangements implementing the SPA MP.

SPAA02 action: 
SPAA02 should identify specific next steps towards agreement on proportional shares at WCPFC23, including any outstanding technical analyses, proportional-share scenarios or calculations, and allocation-related elements sufficiently developed to inform the SPA implementing measure. The Workshop should clarify responsibilities and timelines for any remaining intersessional work and identify specific allocation questions requiring Commission decisions. Detailed implementation and MCS matters should be addressed only where necessary to support agreement on proportional shares and their incorporation into SPA implementation arrangements.