40. To reinforce the concepts and information presented in the Workshop concerning the range of measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing and to encourage participants to interpret and apply them, a problem-solving exercise relating to the “Galapagos Beauty” was undertaken. The outline of the exercise is attached in Appendix H.
41. Participants were requested to work in four groups and to decide what initial steps should be taken to address the rather complex IUU fishing problem presented in the scenario. The compositions of the working groups are attached in Appendix I. The solutions to the problem presented in the Workshop by the leaders of each of the working groups are attached in Appendix J
42. Following the presentations, Mr van der Heijden made comments on the reports of the four working groups. He noted the differences in approaches of the groups in dealing with the problems caused by the fishing vessel “Galapagos Beauty”. Although all groups had developed a strategy that would lead to the arrest of the vessels, they showed varying levels of concern with collecting sufficient evidence to be sure of winning a court case against the owner of the vessel. Mr van der Heijden also noted that some working groups had not planned actions towards obtaining the support of the government of Falu, the state where the company owning this stateless vessel was based. Importantly, in the IPOA-IUU such actions were envisaged.
43. Most of the working groups foresaw a request for assistance to the authorities of the neighbouring port State of Hella, but not all groups seemed to have considered fully the costs of rendering such assistance for this neighbouring State. Only when the relationship between two neighbouring States and between the concerned authorities was good could such assistance be anticipated. Governments and concerned authorities may have to pay more attention to maintaining friendly and cooperative relations with neighbours. Moreover, in the strategies of all the working groups, support and information were requested from various parties outside the government of Zoro (e.g. the Oceanic Fisheries Commission, International MCS Network, Fishers Association). Considering the urgency of the case, this action was fully understandable, but Zoro authorities should not forget to pay equal attention to their contributions and support to these bodies (e.g. by providing all the data and perhaps the full details of the “Galapagos Beauty” case for other members of the Oceanic Commission).
44. Mr van der Heijden pointed out the value of a detailed description of the “Galapagos Beauty” case for public awareness and publicity campaigns in Zetland, the country that was expected to receive the illegally caught fish. NGOs in Zetland could use this description to raise consumers' awareness about the extent and impact of IUU fishing for the country where the fish originated and the harmful impact of such fishing on sustainable fisheries management.
45. One working group considered the possibility of making a request to the Fisher's Association for the use of one of the larger and faster fishing vessels to assist in apprehending the “Galapagos Beauty”. Where possible the involvement of local fishers in programmes to combat IUU fishing was recommended. While fishing at sea, the local fishing vessels could act as helpful “eyes and ears” for MCS personnel based in Zoro.
