Advertisement

Tuna Wars pp 329-337 | Cite as

The Tuna Production Cartel

  • Steven Adolf
Chapter

Abstract

Outside the realm of tuna, the PNA is virtually unknown. But within the tuna world everyone knows what the initials stand for: the Parties to the Nauru Agreement. As we mentioned before: what OPEC is to oil, the PNA is to tuna: a production cartel of eight island states with the largest stocks of this resource. The PNA was set up in 1982 by the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. The autonomous island territory of Tokelau that forms part of New Zealand has been a ‘cooperative member’ since 2012. The PNA is one of the most inspiring agreements when it comes to increasing tuna stock sustainability through fishing policies. Just think about it: eight island states, with less than 9 million inhabitants (of which 8 million in Papua New Guinea), dispersed over thousands of islands and atolls, with a combined EEZ comparable to the size of the European Union before Brexit, joined forces. With an estimated half of global skipjack catches in their seas and a quarter of all total global tuna catches, the PNA was the most important source of raw material for the global canned tuna market. Of the 590 big purse seiners from the distant water fleets which were fishing the world seas from 2010 on, at least 250 could be found in PNA waters.

References

  1. 199.
    Pritchard C (1984) Tuna fishing causes a row between US and Pacific Islands. The Christian Science MonitorGoogle Scholar
  2. 175.
    Mol A (2008) Bringing the environmental state back in: partnerships in perspective. In: Glasbergen P, Biermann F, Mol A (eds) Partnerships, governance and sustainable development. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  3. 131.
    Havice E (2010) The structure of tuna access agreements in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean: lessons for vessel day scheme planning. Mar Policy 34:979–987.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 132.
    Havice E (2013) Rights-based management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean tuna fishery: economic and environmental change under the Vessel Day Scheme. Mar Policy 42:259–267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 85.
    European Commission (2011) In: Ec.europa.eu. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/kiribati_2012_en.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2018
  6. 160.
    Lövin I (2013) Commission memo: fisheries partnership agreement (FPA) between the EU and Kiribati. Main elements of the new protocolGoogle Scholar
  7. 10.
    Arnason R (2015) Review of the PNA purse seine vessel day scheme final report. PNA OfficeGoogle Scholar
  8. 28.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Adolf
    • 1
  1. 1.AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations