40. The Workshop was advised that only 12 countries had prepared and disseminated NPOAs-IUU even though FAO was aware that many other countries and some RFMOs were addressing different aspects of IUU fishing (e.g. through activities such as vessel listing, strengthened international cooperation to fight IUU fishing and enhanced MCS/VMS programmes).
41. The attention of the Workshop was drawn to the NPOAs-IUU, some of which were still draft documents, prepared by Republic of The Gambia, Mexico, Republic of Namibia, New Zealand, Republic of Seychelles, Spain, Kingdom of Tonga, Tuvalu and United States of America. It was noted that the European Commission had also prepared a similar document for its Members while the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO) in East Africa and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources had prepared regional plans of action to combat IUU fishing. Importantly, the regional plan elaborated by LVFO was the first of its type for inland fisheries. Noting differences among the approaches adopted in the preparation of these national and regional documents, Mr Doulman pointed out that they were all, nonetheless, tied closely to the IPOA-IUU.
42. Mr Doulman encouraged participants to review and study the NPOAs-IUU already developed as a means of facilitating the elaboration of their NPOAs-IUU following the Workshop. He noted that no NPOAs-IUU had yet been prepared for the Caribbean subregion. Mr Doulman pointed out that in addition to addressing the technical issues contained in the IPOA-IUU, the NPOAs-IUU should seek to achieve a balance between the current fisheries situation in a country and the extent to which IUU fishing is occurring or has the potential to occur and forward-looking measures that might be adopted to combat IUU fishing at all levels and in all of its forms.
43. In discussing the timing for the preparation of the NPOAs-IUU, participants were urged to initiate their plans as a matter of priority. Mr Doulman noted that even if fisheries legislation needed revision, countries should not await for this process to be completed prior to elaborating and implementing their NPOAs-IUU; indeed, the revision of legislation could be included in the NPOA-IUU as a future action to combat IUU fishing. In this regard, participants were urged to consider their NPOAs-IUU as "living" documents that should be periodically reviewed to take account of the dynamic nature of the fisheries sector and changing conditions that facilitated IUU fishing. Mr Doulman stressed that the NPOAs-IUU, along with other initiatives, should be seen as an integral part of an ongoing process towards improved fisheries management and long-term sustainability.
44. In elaborating their NPOAs-IUU, Mr Doulman expressed the view that countries could, as part of the process, develop check lists that would indicate existing and potential gaps and shortcomings in management and other areas. These check lists would assist countries take corrective action to close these gaps and to minimize the effects of other shortcoming.
45. In relation to the elaboration of NPOAs-IUU, the Workshop recognized the importance of promoting an inclusive approach in drafting the instrument. However, it was pointed out that broad consultation with stakeholders, although beneficial, was often a lengthy and difficult process.
46. The Workshop took note of a suggestion that in addition to a NPOA-IUU, an administration could also prepare a supporting implementation plan and budget. The implementation plan could specify actions to be taken over a specific period to address IUU fishing (e.g. five years) and corresponding outputs. Such a package could be attractive to the international donor community and assist in securing financial support for the implementation of the NPOA-IUU.