APPENDIX

APPENDIX G

Planning your actions

Peter G.M. van der Heijden⁴¹
International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen - UR
Department of Sustainable Natural Resources Management
The Netherlands

⁴¹ International Agricultural Centre (IAC, Wageningen-UR), Department of Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 88, 6700 ABWageningen, The Netherlands. Tel. (+)-31-317-495349; Fax (+)-31-317-495395; E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.iac.wur.nl

Why make a plan?

Simple activities do not need planning because they usually involve only a simple and short activity of one person. If several things have to be done only by you perhaps you have the habit of making a list of “things to do”: for example, at the start of the weekend or early in the morning for the working day ahead of you. This list is a simple tool made in order to reach an objective: to have achieved several things by the end of the day or by the end of the weekend. But more complex activities that involve several tasks that need to be done in a proper sequence and/or by several people require a plan.

Plans are made for several reasons:

• To avoid wasting people's time and money when things are not done in the proper sequence, at the proper time or when they do not contribute to the goals that have to be reached;
• Because the source of funding requires a plan explaining who will spend what part of the funds and on what activities;
• To make activities clearer and more transparent;
• To make sure that actions can continue when certain people leave;
• To realize up-front what alternative actions are in place when circumstances change, and
• To make sure that a certain goal or result is achieved between two points in time: the starting point and the moment you expect to be ready.

Planning is thinking matters through (or talking them through when more than one person is involved in making a plan) about what has to be done to achieve an objective.

Planning = breaking up complex projects or activities⁴²

⁴² This section is derived from Van der Weide, A., A. Beulens & S. van Dijk (2003) Project planning and management. Lemma Publishers, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 212 pp.

In basic terms planning means breaking up a complex activity, project or task into smaller parts so that each part can be better managed and objectives more easily achieved. The question is: according to what criteria should the activity, project or task be broken apart? An example of a complex project could be the building of a house.

We can look at what has to be achieved, and make a break down according to its contents or components :

The planning process can also focus on who has to do something, and a so-called functional break-down will result:

A third option is to break down the process of building the house, focusing on a sequence of events:

Most of the plans we deal with in our lines of work (e.g., sector development, management of natural resources and their exploitation, etc) involve a break-down of activities (actions) that requires breaking down the process , although the other two types of planning mentioned above may also play a role.

After the break up of the complex activity or project into smaller parts, it is necessary to estimate the duration of each part, the input and effort needed to realize each part (e.g., man-days, equipment and material needed) and its costs.

MAKING AN ACTION PLAN

One of the tasks during this regional workshop on IUU fishing is making (the outline of) a national plan of action to combat IUU fishing. In other words: a so-called action plan.

In its simplest form an action plan is a table with four columns.

In the first column the activities are listed; in the second column information on who will undertake the activity is provided; in the third column the timeframe is provided (i.e., when is the activity to be undertaken), and in the last column the resources (e.g., funds, equipment, other people, etc) that will be needed to carry out the identified activities.

Drawing up a table like this on a big sheet of paper, sticking it on the wall and then sitting down in front of it with the group of people involved in making the plan can be a good start for developing an action plan.

The paper on the wall forces people to think and speak about the four important components of a plan. The discussion should not only be about what activities (or actions) should be undertaken but also the priority of the selected actions can be discussed and established. In this way it is possible to rank the various actions according to their importance or urgency (e.g., what should be done first, what next, etc). Thus the priority of the actions for the plan can be easily established. The number assigned to each of the actions will indicate the priority level assigned to it.

But in many cases a more elaborate process is required to determine:

• what activities will be included on the list, and
• how progress with the implementation of the plan is to be monitored.

SELECTION OF ACTIONS

Selection of the actions to be placed in the first column is most often based on the problems being encountered, limitations and issues that are to be addressed in the present situation. This means that the conditions of the present situation must be known, perhaps even assessed (or studied) in more detail and described.

Often existing documents and the experiences of people working in the field provide a good starting point for a first assessment of the problems and issues that are in need of action. Personnel in a government department or agency working in the particular field have much knowledge and views about a problem but it is only one type of knowledge and their view.

Other stakeholders will probably have their own type of knowledge and may have a different perception of what the important problems and issues are. Furthermore, different stakeholder groups are likely to have different perceptions on the problem and issue to be addressed. They are also likely to have different views on the causes of these problems and issues and consequently on the possible solutions.

For example: people in the section of the Fisheries Department working on MCS may have a somewhat different list of main problems and issues with regard to MCS in the EEZ area than people in the Legal Department or the captains working for the Coast Guard or the Marine. Because of the different types of knowledge, experiences, views and interests it is in most cases a good idea to involve all major stakeholder groups before making a policy or before making the “final” list of actions appearing in the action plan. Involving all or most parties and individuals that will play a role in executing the action plan in the design of the plan will also foster a feeling of ownership - (i.e., “their” plan). This broad involvement enhances the sense of ownership. This may mean a more elaborate and time-consuming planning process but it is likely to result in greater commitment and more sustained contributions of the partners in the long term.

There is another aspect to consider: the initiative to involve other groups, departments and individuals in designing the action plan is laudable but we should be aware that potential partner organizations have their own way of planning, their own procedures and culture that should be respected. They may already have made their own plan that they are trying to, or must, implement.

Under these circumstances a number of important issues should be addressed in widening participation in the planning process. These include, for example:

• How to fit in new activities in the process?
• Are these proposed new activities perceived as useful, complementing or fitting in well with what is already being done?
• Are the proposed activities within the mandate?
• Does it mean an extra workload for people who are to already overloaded?

A possible reaction could be: “Don't they know we have already more than enough to do?” The person responsible for involving the various parties in the design and implementation of the action plan should be sensitive and diplomatic in such cases. Combating IUU fishing may not yet rank high on the agenda of potentially important partners in the process of drafting and implementing a national plan of action and we should start by exploring where the activities of likely partners touch upon, overlap or are hampered by IUU fishing. This will be the point for starting the discussions on the action plan. Sharing of information about the origin and consequences of this problem may be the first and necessary step to make people aware and willing to become involved.

We can expect the most enthusiastic cooperation from those most affected by this problem. Keep in mind that involving groups, institutes and individuals in a national plan of action may be perceived as a top-down approach. The person responsible for the design of the action plan may have to connect the problems and issues that these groups, institutes and individuals are already working on (or suffering from) with the possible of likely elements of the plan to make the design process and the execution of the national action plan to a success.

TERMINOLOGY

At this point it may be good to look more closely at terminology. So far in this paper both “action” and “activity” have been used synonymously. However, different countries and departments may use other planning terms. Those participants familiar with the logical framework for planning (Log Frame) or with the “objective oriented program planning” (OOPP or ZOPP) will be accustomed to words like objectives, indicators, etc. Others participants may use other terms. The following table lists words with similar, or almost similar, meanings⁴³:

⁴³ MDF Training & Consultancy (2005) Course on Project Management (PM). Ede, the Netherlands.

When trying to engage other groups or organizations in the planning process it could be wise to use the same terminology they are already using in their own planning processes. Such terminology would be found in the planning documents already produced or from informal discussions with representatives of these organizations and groups.

WHEN?

When completing the third column “when”, if the information becomes too elaborate or extensive to fit into the column, we can make a separate table that highlights the time aspect: a so-called time plan . In such a plan the time when certain activities should be undertaken or completed are indicated:

Example of a time plan:

With a dark line or with crosses under the appropriate month, the time when an activity will take place is indicated. By dividing each month into four separate columns (i.e., weeks), the time plan can be given greater detail and accuracy because it can be indicated whether an activity is to take place in the first, second, third or fourth week of each month.

WHO?

A plan that focuses on who should undertake certain tasks or activities is called a “responsibility chart”. In such a chart it is immediately clear how the tasks and activities will be divided or allocated.

Example responsibility chart:

MONITORING: A MATTER OF INDICATORS AND MILE STONES

The captain on a ship regularly looks on a map or screen to see where he came from and to determine if he is on the right course towards his destination. While implementing or executing a plan it is necessary to see whether you are making progress and whether you are still on the right track towards reaching your goal.

One way of doing this is to sit down regularly with all people involved in the implementation of the plan (or with representatives of the involved agencies and groups) to:

• take stock of what has been done;
• assess how successful progress has been;
• determine what can be learned from the experience to date; and
• evaluate what remains to be done, possibly in an adjusted way.

But how do we measure success and progress? What considerations will we take into account when we ask ourselves the question whether we are on the right course or how successful are we doing?

While preparing the plan it is a good idea to think and discuss how the plan's progress can and shall be monitored. This matter requires that we think of appropriate and realistic indicators: i.e., parameters that change as a result of our actions as we implement the plan. Some examples of indicators include the:

• average number of ships seen to be fishing illegally in the EEZ during a surveillance trip;
• number of landings of fish whose origin cannot be certified as coming from legal fishing, and
• number of illegal fishing vessels spotted and reported by the skippers of the national fishing fleet.

Another way of monitoring progress with the implementation of the plan is the specification of important events or stages that will be reached during the implementation process. Examples of such, so-called milestones, include:

• the adoption of a relevant legislation;
• an important decision being made by the Cabinet;
• an important convention being held;
• a Code of Conduct being accepted by the fleet; and
• a new surveillance vessel or plane becoming operational.

UPDATING OR REVISING THE PLAN

We probably know that “Every plan is wrong, when we look at it from hindsight”. This is because a plan specifies what will be done in the future (i.e., future action). However, we live in a dynamic and changing world. Conditions and the situation around us changes, and some elements or aspects of the plan that was made some time ago may loose its urgency or relevance and new problems and issues may crop up. Therefore, plans should be looked at critically from time to time to see if changes are needed. Moreover, an assessment of the progress being made with the execution of the plan (i.e., during its evaluation) may lead to the conclusion that changes in the plan are required. During the implementation process all parties should be getting wiser and are learning - this is part of living and working in a dynamic planning environment.

We should remember that plans are simply tools to make our work more effective and are not designed to “straight jacket” our activities; plans should not limit or restrain us and our work.

If an adjustment or revision to the plan results in a more effective or more up-to-date tool, then these changes should be made as a means of making the tool more effective. This is especially the case for more complicated plans that are designed and implemented by several parties or institutes. Under these circumstances it is wise during the drafting process to indicate the conditions that may allow for the introduction of change to the plan, including the procedures to be followed when changes and adjustments are being made. We should also address other questions such as:

• Under what conditions can or should a plan be changed or revised?
• Who can or should initiate the process leading towards the change and revision?

MORE INFORMATION ON PLANNING

There are many tools available that can help in the planning process, especially when it has to be done in a participatory (or inclusive) manner. There are manuals and guidelines for managers that deal with planning, monitoring and evaluation. Some of these manuals explain in detail how a certain problem or situation can be analyzed, and how, based on this analysis, a planning process resulting in a logical framework matrix , focusing on specific objectives, activities, indicators and assumptions, could be undertaken. This is the so-called “objective oriented project planning”. The following Web sites⁴⁴ will be very useful for those of you who want to study these subjects further. The tools and techniques for especially participatory processes are explained and the websites have often links to relevant books, reports and other websites dealing with planning, monitoring and evaluation.

⁴⁴ http://www.iac.wur.nl/ppme/index.php
http://www.doc.govt.nz/Community/Sponsorship-and-Partnerships/Guidelines-for-community-conservation-
partnerships/Tool-kit-for-community-projects/007~Group-planning.asp
http://www.toolkitparticipation.com/
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm or
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sba102.htm
http://www.fao.org/participation/default.htm
www.capacity.org

APPENDIX H

Role playing/problem solving
making responsible decisions about IUU fishing

PROBLEM : The foreign flagged vessel, “Galapagos Beauty”, a 550 GRT stern trawler has been fishing for the last four days in the EEZ of the Republic of Zoro. The vessel is not authorized to fish in the EEZ. The vessel has been making good catches of pomp, cot and rouly, all of which are high valued species and have strong market demand in Europe and North America.

The Chief Fisheries Officer (CFO) in Angona, the capital of Zoro estimates that the vessel has taken 200 tonnes of these species in the four day period while operating in the country's EEZ. His estimates are based on records of past catches, industry intelligence and photographs taken from the air while the vessel was hauling its net.

The vessel, according to its markings and flag which are clearly visible from the air, is registered in Camilla, a small island state in the Southern Ocean. Zoro's CFO has contacted the Registry Manager in Camilla. He has advised that there is no record of this vessel on the registry.

Zoro's medium-scale fishers who operate vessels of upto 200 GRT have protested to the Minister for Fisheries in Angona claiming that this larger foreign vessel is taking fish that they are legitimately authorized to catch. These fishers claim that the “Galapagos Beauty” is in fact flying more than one flag. Questions have been asked in parliament about what action the Government is taking to deal with this incursion. The Minister is under pressure to respond with a strong reply.

Zoro has a limited MCS capacity. It has only one small multi-purpose vessel that is used for MCS and search and rescue when and if required. However, the Government does have a light aircraft that it uses regularly to surveille the EEZ. It is used for fisheries, customs and search and rescue purposes. Zoro is a new member of the International MCS Network.

Intercepted radio conversations between the captain of the “Galapagos Beauty” and the vessel owner, who lives in Falu, have revealed that the fish will be offloaded in a neighbouring country in the port of Hella, 350 kms from Angora, in two days time. Apparently, the catch has been sold on a forward contract and is destined for transport to a national supermarket chain in Zetland.

Zoro is a member of the Oceanic Fisheries Commission which maintains information on IUU fishing activities submitted by members. The Commission also has a ‘blacklist' of IUU fishing vessels.

MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM : The Minister has called a meeting of officials and a representative from the fishing industry in his office. Those involved in the meeting are:

1. Minister
2. CFO
3. Representative from the Government Solicitor
4. Senior MCS Officer
5. President of the Fishers Association
6. Coordinator of the International MCS Network

7. Director of the Oceanic Fisheries Commission

ACTION : To develop a strategy to deal with the problem.

TIME ALLOCATION : 1.0 hour.

APPENDIX I

Composition of the Working Groups

WORKING GROUP 1

WORKING GROUP 2

WORKING GROUP 3

WORKING GROUP 4

APPENDIX J

Problem solving: making responsible decisions about IUU fishing

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 1

Important assumptions:

• Neighbouring countries are members of the Commission and International MCS Network
• Political relationship with Hella and other neighbours

Minister

• To advise government of the country's concern about the nature of the problem and if their authorities would cooperate in investigating the matter
• To initiate cooperation with neighbouring countries if there is none
• To advise the Parliament that appropriate action has been taken

Chief Fisheries Officer

• To provide details of the “Galapagos Beauty” to the Director of Oceanic Fisheries Commission to verify if the vessel is on the blacklist and/or on the register with background information about the vessel
• To detail how records of past catches were made. This could provide information as to whether or not the vessel was licensed previously
• To organise travel for a MCS Officer and Fisheries Officer to Hella
• To update the Minister on progress with the case

Representative from the Government Solicitor

• To provide advice on how authorities in the other countries could assist in prosecuting the case
• To determine if there are any formal arrangements between the countries to deal with the matter bilaterally. This would involve the sharing of proceeds etc.
• To provide advice on how to have the shipment confiscated by authorities in Hella or Zetland because the product is from an IUU fishing vessel
• To prepare legal proceedings

Senior MCS Officer

• To verify the source of information contained in the conversation between the captain and the owner of the “Galapagos Beauty” and complaints from fishermen
• To contact his counterparts (through the International MCS Network) in Zetland to establish which national supermarket chain is involved in the purchase of the fish, information on the vessel's owner in Falu and the arrival of the fish in Hella in two days time
• To make an assessment of patrol capabilities of other vessels
• To send the light aircraft to verify reports of the vessel's presence and other matters

President of the Fishers Association

• To provide further information on the vessel's activity in Zoro's waters through fishing vessel masters
• To identify of any local companies have the same market as the intended product from the “Galapagos Beauty”
• Logistics

Coordinator of the International MCS Network

• To obtain information through the Network on registration, ownership or identity of the vessel, e.g. confirmation from Camilla
• To advise the Chief Fisheries Officer of the result
• To contact other neighbouring MCS operators about the “Galapagos Beauty's” activities and movements

Director of the Oceanic Fisheries Commission

• To provide information on the status of the vessel and if registered
• To ask whether or not the vessel is blacklisted, and if not to request that the vessel be added to the blacklist
• To send an official letter to fisheries in Zetland to inform the supermarket chain that they are buying illegally caught fish from the “Galapagos Beauty”

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 2

Analysis of the problem:

1. Since the vessel is considered a stateless vessel, any State can arrest it
2. Use Lacey Act type provisions to allow for prosecution of the vessel in the port State on the basis that the vessel has contravened national laws in Zoro
3. Rather than requesting the port State to refuse entry to the vessel because it has been fishing illegally, to request the port State to permit the vessel to port and then to apprehend it along with its catch and gear
4. The market State of Zetland to be officially requested not to permit entry of IUU caught fish from Zoro
5. After conviction of the vessel, to request Falu to initiate proceedings against the owner. Falu has national laws similar to that of New Zealand concerning control over nationals

The following actions should be undertaken:

Minister

• To deal with and brief the Zoro Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of State
• To ensure that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs liases with Camilla to confirm that it is the flag State; with Falu to determine if the owner resides there; with the port State of Hella and with Zetland as the proposed market State
• To request the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to contact the Commission
• To brief the Government and Parliament on the situation

Chief Fisheries Officer

• To make an assessment of evidence collected and to make recommendations to the Government Solicitor on whether to institute proceedings in the port State
• To provide updated licence information for Zoro
• To provide regular updates on meetings and to coordinate the strategy

Representative from the Government Solicitor

• To identify provisions in national law that can be used to prosecute the “Galapagos Beauty”
• To advise on legal matters: including Lacey Act type provisions and the sharing of proceeds from the successful prosecution of the vessel in Hella
• To advise on the pros and cons of prosecution in Zoro or Hella
• To contact the port State of Hella and prepare a case for prosecution
• To prepare a brief on the prosecution of the vessel owner in Falu under Falu's laws relating to the owner's involvement in IUU fishing

Senior MCS Officer

• To liase with the coordinator of the International MCS Network and to brief on the violation, assuming that the coordinator is not present
• To collect information on the fishing history of the vessel and its operator, particularly any information relating to IUU fishing practices
• To provide evidence of all VMS tracks of the vessel during the four days in question, assuming that the vessel operates VMS
• To ensure that aerial photographs comply with admissibility requirements, i.e. date and time stamp, statement by navigator on flight path, conditions and where the photographs were taken including reference to landmarks, GPS position etc.
• To solicit information from surveillance aircraft crew on activities of the vessel

President of Fishers Association

• To provide information on the market value of the fish, current value of the vessel, fishing gear and other equipment on board
• To call on members to boycott the national supermarket chain in Zetland if they do not cancel the forward contract
• To request members to stand in as witnesses in the port State if this is required

Coordinator of the International MCS Network

• To publicise information about the vessel to all Network members and to request information pertaining to the vessel
• To request that Zoro be notified of vessel movements and possible ports where the vessel might enter to offload its catch, assuming that the information given by owner is untrue

Director of the Oceanic Fisheries Commission

• To provide, if any, past records of the vessel, specifically information from the Commission's register and other information concerning IUU fishing by the vessel
• To call on members to take relevant action including port and market-related measures against the vessel

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 3

Problem:

An unregistered, stateless vessel has been seen fishing in Zoro's EEZ.

Assumptions:

• No budget constraints
• Hella and Zoro are cooperating States and have a joint maritime surveillance and enforcement agreement
• Hella is a member of the International MCS Network
• No VMS tracking of the “Galapagos Beauty” is available
• Hella, Zetland, Falu and Zoro all have NPOAs-IUU
• The “Galapagos Beauty” has been operating in Zoro's EEZ for some time

The following actions should be undertaken:

Minister

• To collaborate with the Government Solicitor to contact the Hella government to ask for assistance to apprehend the “Galapagos Beauty”, using their patrol boat and to escort the fishing vessel to port in Zoro
• To contact Zetland authorities to close the market for the catch taken by the “Galapagos Beauty” and to inform the government of the supermarket's involvement in purchasing IUU caught fish
• To contact the Falu government and advise it that the vessel owner has been involved in IUU fishing activities and to ask assistance in apprehending the owner to face trial in Zoro

Chief Fisheries Officer

• To contact authorities at the port of Hella and request that the port be closed to the “Galapagos Beauty” and to advise the government of its IUU fishing activity or if the capture of the vessel at sea fails, to arrest it if it attempts to enter port
• To coordinate surveillance efforts if it is by sea and air involving the deployment of patrol vessels and surveillance aircraft to locate the “Galapagos Beauty”

Representative from the Government Solicitor

• To work with the Minister to organise cooperative efforts with the governments of Hella and Falu
• To prepare a court case against the “Galapagos Beauty”
• To gather evidence collected by the senior MCS officer

Senior MCS Officer

• To work with the President of the Fishers Association and aerial surveillance crew who photographed the vessel to estimate the location of the “Galapagos Beauty” and to also obtain verified statements from these parties who observed the vessel engaged in IUU fishing activities
• To contact the Oceanic Fisheries Commission to report the IUU fishing activity and to seek information on the “Galapagos Beauty” and to also attempt to blacklist the vessel.
• To contact the International MCS Network for any information on the “Galapagos Beauty” and to request that all international ports and markets be closed to the vessel

President of Fishers Association

• To bring in the fishers who witnessed the IUU fishing activities for the senior MCS Officer so that he can collect verified statements
• To work with the government of Zoro to obtain information regarding its NPOA-IUU and to inform local fishers
• To put pressure on government officials to ensure action is taken against the “Galapagos Beauty”

Coordinator of the International MCS Network

• To informs the Zoro government, via the senior MCS Officer, of any information regarding the “Galapagos Beauty”
• To inform international contacts of the “IUU fishing status” of the “Galapagos Beauty”

Director of the Oceanic Fisheries Commission

• To coordinate the collection of information to be given to the International MCS Officer of Zoro
• To prepare to blacklist the vessel in case of successful prosecution

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 4

The following actions should be undertaken:

Minister

• To coordinate through the foreign affairs departments of Zoro and its neighbouring country to develop a coordinated MCS plan to intercept the “Galapagos Beauty” if the MCS assets of Zoro are unable to intercept the vessel
• To formulate a particular agreement (a Niue type agreement for joint and reciprocal enforcement already existed) between Zoro and the country and the State where Hella is located in relation to officers from Zoro going into Hella and the legal arrangements for the prosecution and fines relating to the case if the vessel makes it to Hella
• To write to the foreign affairs department of Zetland to advise of the situation and the options for legal action through Zetland
• To declare the product on board of the vessel has been IUU caught fish if it reaches the market place
• To correspond with the country of Camilla and obtain official dialogue on the status of the “Galapagos Beauty”

Chief Fisheries Officer

• To prepare two sets of officers to assist with the investigation; one to be deployed with the MCS assets of Zoro to intercept the vessel and the other to be deployed to Hella (under the agreement) and link with the MCS assets in Hella
• To acquire information from the government of Camilla about any vessel matching the description of the “Galapagos Beauty”
• To instruct the boarding teams to search and seize information relating to the flag of the vessel which may be held on board
• To seize and sell the IUU caught product (in country) and the proceeds of the sale will to be held in trust pending the outcome of the prosecution

Representative from the Government Solicitor

• To investigate the legal situation with stateless vessel
• To seek information about Lacey Act type provisions
• To request extradition arrangementsand legal action through the neighbouring State and Zetland
• To assist MCS and the fisheries department
• To commence preparation for prosecution

Senior MCS Officer

• To immediately initiate the “hot pursuit” of the “Galapagos Beauty” with the Fisheries Officers
• To deploy the MCS vessel and the aircraft to as swiftly as possible in an attempt to intercept the “ Galapagos Beauty”

President of Fishers Association

• To request members who have information relating to the “Galapagos Beauty” to report it to the Fisheries Department
• To publicise the actions of the supermarket in Zetland

Coordinator of the International MCS Network

• To provide information from the Network on the “Galapagos Beauty” as a means of assisting Fisheries Officers
• To register the “Galapagos Beauty” as a vessel of interest
• To publicise the actions of the supermarket in Zetland
• Director of the Oceanic Fisheries Commission
• To request that the Commission provides information on the “Galapagos Beauty”
• To request that the “Galapagos Beauty” be blacklisted after its successful prosecution
• To note the actions of the supermarket and Zetland
• To declare the product on board the “Galapagos Beauty” to be IUU caught fish if it reaches the market place

Outcome

The aircraft and the patrol vessel from Zoro were coordinated to intercept the “Galapagos Beauty”. The assets from Zoro were assisted by the assets from the neighboring country that cornered the vessel. Arrangements for these actions were covered by a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the two countries.

MCS and Fisheries Officers from Zoro boarded and arrested the “Galapagos Beauty” and escorted the vessel back to port in Zoro. The catch was sold and held in trust awaiting the successful prosecution of the “Galapagos Beauty”.

If the intercept had failed neighboring countries were aware of the situation and prepared for action. The marketing channels had been covered as the port of Hella was instructed to seize the vessel and the product on arrival. A ministerial declaration notified all countries that the product on board the “Galapagos Beauty” had been taken illegally in Zoro's EEZ.

Both Zetland and the supermarket chain claimed they were unaware of the origin of the product and have now taken steps to improve their marketing system to make it harder for IUU caught product to be brought into and sold in Zetland.

The minister was re-elected after a massive swing in voting from the fishing community.

APPENDIX K

Identification of issues and actions to develop a NPOA−IUU

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 1

1. Which Ministries/Departments are involved in the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU?

   • Fisheries for Licensing,
   • Government Solicitors for Legislation
   • Defence for Enforcement resources
   • Environment for Conservation
   • Finance for providing the financial resources
   • Ports Authority for Access

   • Trade and Fishing Industries for Laws of Marketing in determining the price (GDP)

2. What constraints are likely to be faced in the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU?

   • Financial Constraints
   • Gathering of information from interagency for data
   • Disagreements between government departments because they have different roles
   • Political support
   • Delay of feedback from different departments

   • Human resources and other resources

3. How can these constraints be overcome?

   • Financial constraints: request more funding
   • Setting up meetings, consultation and promoting public awareness
   • Advise the Minister on the importance of NPOA−IUU
   • Setting a realistic timeframe for implementation

   • Establish a post of a NPOA−IUU project coordinator

4. How national resources could be mobilized for the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU?

   • Project funding proposal for government assistance, FAO, etc.
   • Technical assistance

   • Bilateral and multilateral requests

5. What considerations could affect the ability of countries to deliver a NPOA−IUU?

   • Depends on the government priority list
   • Not enough data or information available
   • Lack of political will

   • Lack of skilled expertise

6. Steps to be undertaken in elaborating a NPOA−IUU

   • Submit a Report that have recommendations to the Director of Fisheries and the Minister
   • Set up meetings between ministries
   • See funding (local and Overseas)
   • Consultation should be continuous
   • Final Plan of Action
   • Endorsement

   • Public awareness

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 2

1. Which Ministries/Departments are involved in the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU?

   Formation of Committee (Primary and Secondary)

   • Ministry of Fisheries (Tonga)/Ministry of Resources and Development (Palau) primary role:
     • Lead role in policy review; advise on legal review
     • Management and coordination of the process
     • Lead role in review of implementation
   • Ministry of Justice (Attorney-Generals Department)
     • Legal review, legal drafting, regular review of fisheries law, provision of legal advice
     • Litigation (lessons learnt)
   • Marine and Ports Department (Tonga)/Division of Transportation (Palau)/FIMSA and Ports Terminal Limited (Fiji)
     • Inform on rules relating to ports and facilities
     • Participate in legal review and policy review
     • Advise on port security measures and gaps in existing practice
     • Inter-agency cooperation
   • Environment Department
     • Management and conservation principles; marine pollution, reduction of wastes; destructive fishing practices
     • Inter-agency cooperation
   • Foreign Affairs/Ministry of State
     • Implication on external relationships
     • Implications on existing bilateral and multilaterals arrangements, etc.
     • Implications on donor support, technical assistance, grants etc
   • Environmental NGOs
     • Provide guidance on conservation and management issues
     • Input on measures to reduce harmful impacts on fishery
   • Customs and Immigration Department
     • Policy review, participation in legal review
     • Inter-agency cooperation
     • Trade and Investment Bureau (Fiji)/ Ministry of Labour and Commerce (Tonga)
     • Establishment of offshore investments, international companies, locally based legal entities, national requirements
   • Trade measures and rules, trade incentives, government subsidies
     • Inter-agency cooperation
   • Defenses Forces (Police/Army/Navy/Patrol Division)
     • Security issues, transnational crime, money laundering, drug smuggling, people smuggling, piracy etc
     • MCS and border control issues
   • Hydrographic/Mapping/Survey Office
     • Update on maritime boundaries and contentious issues
     • Update on boundary agreements/codicils with neighboring countries
   • Inland Revenue Department/Finance
     • Inform meeting on budgeting implications, potential tax revenue

   Other:

   • Local Fishing Industry
     • Potential role in MCS
     • Advise on practicalities of provisions
   • Resource Owners
     • Advise on potential impacts on traditional fishing areas

     • Potential role in MCS

2. What constraints are likely to be faced in the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU?

   • Getting the right inter-agency commitment and cooperation
   • Political will
   • Finance

   • Absence of adequate legal framework

3. How can these constraints be overcome?

   • Cabinet to establish Committee (one from each Ministry and stakeholders) with specific tasks and objectives
   • Create incentives for participation (e.g. provide free lunches)
   • Do not involve over-committed people, i.e. choose the right people

   • Ensure that there is an adequate legal framework to support the provisions of the NPOA−IUU

4. How could national resources be mobilized for the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU?

   • Cabinet level commitment of initiative and endorsement of budget for developing NPOA−IUU

   • Establish a Fisheries Management Fund where all fisheries fines and penalties etc are deposited. A percentage from this fund is to be used for the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU

5. What considerations could affect the ability of countries to deliver a NPOA−IUU?

   • For initial response refer to (2) above
   • Institutional Capacity

   • Bilateral/Multilateral Agreements - provisions of agreements may conflict with NPOA−IUU provisions

6. Steps to be undertaken in elaborating a NPOA−IUU

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 3

1. Which Ministries / Departments are involved in the elaboration of a NPOA-IUU?

   • Fisheries (Primary responsibility for the NPOA, licensing, etc.)
   • Ministry of Transport (consultation on aspects of Fishing Industry where the Ministry is involved)
   • Solicitor General (For legal aspects of the development and implementation aspects of the NPOA such as legislation review)
   • Ships registry (Consulted for information on vessels under the countries jurisdiction)
   • Ports and harbor (Consulted for control on vessel movements within ports)
   • Defense/Maritime Police (Consulted for surveillance and enforcement measures and involvement)
   • Fishers Association (Consulted for information regarding the Fishing industry, as a stakeholder)
   • Ministry of Finance (Consultation for budgetary purposes and trade related issues)
   • Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Consultation regarding international partnerships, or formation of these relationships, cooperative arrangements with neighboring states, and trade issues)
   • Department of Conservation/Environment (Consultation on issues regarding conservation measures)

   • NGOs (Organizations that have interests in the marine environment such as Greenpeace, and fish markets-trade)

2. What constraints are likely to be faced in the elaboration of a NPOA-IUU?

   • Information gathering or lack of information to gather
   • Lack of motivation by different departments - added responsibilities, no clear gain
   • Lack of governmental funding

   • Lack of expertise/capacity/human resources

3. How can these constraints be overcome?

   • Obtaining help from Regional/International institutions such as SPC, FFA, ADB and FAO, regarding information on past studies or surveys completed in respective country
   • Organize the development or enhancement of local databases
   • International agreements and treaties that have been signed or adopted
   • Obtaining technical and funding assistance from organizations such as FAO, FFA, SPC, or from donor countries.
   • Hiring experts to assist in the development of the NPOA such as Dr Brown.
   • Facilitate workshops/training to develop knowledge and skills within local employees/people

   • The development of the local economy by means of developing the fishing industry and strengthening its resources may motivate the development of a NPOA

4. How national resources could be mobilized for the elaboration of a NPOA-IUU?

   • Use of government funding
   • Use of local expertise
   • Use of data collections/databases. Completed surveys and plans

   • Using regional/national institutions of interest

5. What considerations could affect the ability of countries to deliver a NPOA-IUU?

   • Countries may be dependant on income/revenue generated from fishing activities (fees, etc.)
   • Legislation already in place that may not require the development of a NPOA
   • Funding
   • Lack of capacity (due to lack of human resources, or people always out of country attending meetings such as this)
   • Impact of IUU fishing on resources

   • The status of IUU fishing within the fishery (may not be significant, if at all)

6. Steps to be undertaken in elaborating a NPOA-IUU?

   • Review of relevant legislation
   • Identifying current status of fishing sector in terms of IUU fishing
   • Gathering of MCS and other relevant information for the plan (current data)
   • Identifying the value/importance of the fishery

   • Mechanisms for consultation with other departments and organizations involved in the fishing industry

NB: Reviews are done every 4 years, but in the years prior to the IPOA-IUU reviews.

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 4

1. Which Ministries/Departments are involved in the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU?

   • Department of Fisheries
   • Department of Trade and Commerce
   • Department of Transport and Shipping
   • Department of Environment
   • Attorney Generals Office

   • Ministry for Provincial Affairs or Local Government

2. What constraints are likely to be faced in the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU?

   • Operation and coordination of key stakeholders
   • Lack of technically skilled personnel or time
   • Lack of Communication on regional matters by representatives

   • Funding constraints

3. How can these constraints be overcome?

   • Government support
   • Good facilitator
   • Resource allocation
   • Increased training and capacity

   • Special funding

4. How national resources could be mobilized for the elaboration of a NPOA−IUU?

   • Government support
   • Good facilitator
   • Allocate responsibility (Special Taskforce and contacts)
   • Regional coordination
   • Public awareness campaign

   • FAO support

5. What considerations could affect the ability of countries to deliver a NPOA−IUU?

   • Government support
   • Funding
   • Timing (political)

   • Lack of support by FAO

6. Steps to be undertaken in elaborating a NPOA−IUU

APPENDIX L

Priority listing of problems by country for the region and proposed actions to combat these problems