Previous Page Table of Contents


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: peter.vanderheijden@wur.nl 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:

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.

ActionWhoWhenResources
1.   
2.   
3.   
4.   
5.   
6.   

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:

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:

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.

TERMSYNONYM
Overall objectiveGoal, Development objective, Long-term objective
Project purposeShort-term objective, Specific objective
ResultsOutputs, Immediate objectives
ActivitiesActions
AssumptionsRisks, Development hypothesis
Sources of verificationMeans of verification, Means of assessment, Sources of information

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:

ActivityJanFebMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugSeptOctNovDec
1.            
2.            
3.            
4.            
5.            

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:

ActivityLegal DeptFisheries Dept - MCS unitCoast GuardVessel owners associationEtc
1.     
2.     
3.     
4.     

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

Leader:FILIPO, Logoitino
Rapporteur:PAKOP, Noan
Members:TAFATU, James
TAWAKEVOU, Sitiveni
TORIBAU, Lagi

WORKING GROUP 2

Leader and Rapporteur:MALSOL, Nannette D.
Members:CAGILABA, Simione
FA'AMANU, ‘Ulunga
MANOA, Pio
NAVITI, William

WORKING GROUP 3

Leader and Rapporteur:MARU, Pamela
Members:APINELU, Nikolasi
PESALELI, Toetu
THOULAG, Bernard

WORKING GROUP 4

Leader:RAIWALUI, Anare
Rapporteur:HURST, Kyle
Members:NIDUNG, Masio
REMENGESAU, Victor
TABOKAI, Tetoaiti

APPENDIX J

Problem solving: making responsible decisions about IUU fishing

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 1

Important assumptions:

Minister

Chief Fisheries Officer

Representative from the Government Solicitor

Senior MCS Officer

President of the Fishers Association

Coordinator of the International MCS Network

Director of the Oceanic Fisheries Commission

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

Chief Fisheries Officer

Representative from the Government Solicitor

Senior MCS Officer

President of Fishers Association

Coordinator of the International MCS Network

Director of the Oceanic Fisheries Commission

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 3

Problem:

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

Assumptions:

The following actions should be undertaken:

Minister

Chief Fisheries Officer

Representative from the Government Solicitor

Senior MCS Officer

President of Fishers Association

Coordinator of the International MCS Network

Director of the Oceanic Fisheries Commission

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 4

The following actions should be undertaken:

Minister

Chief Fisheries Officer

Representative from the Government Solicitor

Senior MCS Officer

President of Fishers Association

Coordinator of the International MCS Network

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?

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

  3. How can these constraints be overcome?

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

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

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

ACTIVITYAPPROVALS REQUIREDSTARTING DATEFINISHING DATE
1. Policy reviewSection Heads
Department Heads,
Minister
26/1/200626/6 2006
2. Legislation reviewGovernment solicitor, to the Minister, and cabinet26/6/200626/9/2006
3. Develop the NPOA−IUUAll the Department Heads26/9/200611/2006
4. Legislation developmentCabinet1/20076/2007
5. Implementation of NPOA−IUUDepartment (Main Fisheries)6/20076/2008
6. Review of implementationDepartment6/20081/2011

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 2

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

    Formation of Committee (Primary and Secondary)

    Other:

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

  3. How can these constraints be overcome?

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

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

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

ACTIVITYAPPROVALS REQUIREDSTARTING DATEFINISHING DATE
1. Policy reviewFisheries for development of policy/Cabinet approves policy10/200512/2005
2. Legislation reviewAttorney General review Fisheries1/20066/2006
3. Develop the NPOA−IUUFisheries, ministries and primary stakeholders7/200610/2006
4. Legislation development (incorporation of IUU related provisions)Attorney General Fisheries12/20068/2007
5. Legislation adoption (IUU related provisions)Parliament/Congress Attorney General - gazette, regulation etc8/20072/2008
6. Review of implementationFisheries with Committee referred to in (1)Plan to be reviewed every 2 years.2010, 2012, 2014

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP 3

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

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

  3. How can these constraints be overcome?

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

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

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

ACTIVITYAPPROVALS REQUIREDSTARTING DATEFINISHING DATE
1. Policy reviewSecretary of Fisheries/ Attorney General1/20067/2006
2. Legislation reviewSecretary of Fisheries/ Government Solicitor/ Attorney General8/20069/2007
3. Develop the NPOA−IUUSecretary of Fisheries/ Secretary of Finance9/20073/2008
4. Legislation developmentMinister of Fisheries/ Attorney General/ Cabinet4/20084/2012
5. Implementation of NPOA-IUUSecretary of Fisheries/ Head of MCS5/2012On going
6. Review of implementationSecretary of Fisheries6/201612/2016

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?

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

  3. How can these constraints be overcome?

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

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

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

ACTIVITYAPPROVALS REQUIREDSTARTING DATEFINISHING DATE
1. Policy reviewCabinet/Board1/20066/2006
2. Legislation reviewFisheries/Cabinet7/20067/2007
3. Develop the NPOA−IUUFisheries/Cabinet10/20054/2006
4. Legislation DevelopmentOther Departments6/20067/2007
5. Implementation of NPOA−IUUCabinet/Departments7/20078/2007
6. Review of implementationCabinet/Departments7/2008 

APPENDIX L

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

IUU Fishing Issues in offshore industrial fisheriesCook IslandsFederated States of MicronesiaFijiKiribatiNiuePalauPapua New GuineaTongaTuvaluSamoaVanuatuAverageRank
Non-reporting and misreporting of catches and other activities154555122313.11
Unauthorized fishing2212883641234.62
Fishing by unregistered and unlicensed vessels including FOC vessels3123364777114.93
Encroachment by foreign fishing vessels13751111533144.93
Inadequate MCS operations58127248111525.95
Fishing for unauthorized species and undersized species1431464229146148.06
Inadequate legislation for IUU fishing/ MCS129997312106478.06
Use of prohibited gears and fishing methods4613499711513128.58
Lack of subregional cooperation on IUU fishing issues1111101211101049898.69
Lack of coordination and communications between agencies in national administrations10101186711881489.210
Lack of international cooperation on IUU fishing issues715711101595102109.210
Lack of documentation verification mechanisms at the national level814313121351313569.512
Difficulties in accessing information about the IUU fishing history of suspect vessels61361415146121111510.313
Fishing endangered and protected species15415101311131415101312.114
Use of unseaworthy vessels912815141214151291512.315


ISSUEACTION
Non-reporting and misreporting of catches and other activitiesTo increase observer coverage
To verify observer reports
To increasing boarding and inspection operations at sea/port
To prosecute for violations
To enhance port sampling and unloading reports
Unauthorized fishingTo increase boarding and inspection
To contact the vessels agent and take action as appropriate
To increase budget provision to support MCS
To enforce national legislation
Fishing by unregistered and unlicensed vessels including FOC vesselsTo notify RFMOs, the International MCS Network, neighbouring countries
To keep all MCS assets including coast watch operations appraised of suspected IUU fishing
Encroachment by foreign fishing vesselsTo contact vessel agents, industry representatives and representation through diplomatic channels
Inadequate MCS operationsTo ensure adequate resources to support MCS operations
To promote capacity development and institution strengthening
To invoke sub regional arrangement to support national MCS activities
Fishing for unauthorized species and undersized speciesTo check species and sizes in port and during at sea inspection
To provide specie guides for or fishers and inspectors
To verify that vessels only take species for which they are authorised
To ensure that observers verify species and sizes in the course of their work including incidental of non target species and species of special interest
To ensure that only authorised fishing gear is used (to be checked during pre-trip vessel inspections and by observers at sea)
To consider management options for the use of restricted methods of fishing e.g. use of fads
To promote awareness about the importance of sustainable fishing practises
To attempt to block markets for authorised and under size species
Inadequate legislation for IUU fishing/MCSTo review and strengthen legislation as required and to ensure that legal fraternity is aware of the importance of the legislation to support sustainable resource use
To increase penalties for infringements
To include sub regional arrangements for enforcement purposes
Use of prohibited gears and fishing methodsTo ensure that prosecution are initiated
To engage in awareness campaigns about the impacts of such gear and methods
To restrict the importation and possession of prohibited gears
To cooperate regionally to prohibit certain gear as required
Lack of subregional cooperation on IUU fishing issuesTo implement subsidiary arrangements for regional and subregional agreements
Lack of coordination and communications between agencies in national administrationsTo appoint a liaison officer to promote coordination
To encourage the establishment of ad hoc committees to consider issues and to exchange information
Lack of international cooperation on IUU fishing issuesTo identify national focal points and contacts in relevant international organisations, including through regional organizations
To encourage closer cooperation among RFMOs, especially for organizations involve with the same or similar species
Lack of documentation verification mechanisms at the national levelTo promote the International MCS Network
To promote FFA's MCS Network and the Global VMS Network
Difficulties in accessing information about the IUU fishing history of suspect vesselsTo encourage the establishment of a global information repository and database
Fishing endangered and protected speciesTo create awareness about not taking endangered and protected species
To ban the import and export of such species
To encourage countries to become members of CITES
To cooperate fully with SPREP on matters relating to endangered and protected species
Use of unseaworthy vesselsTo ban the use of unseaworthy fishing vessel and enforce international standards through more effective inspections
To ensure that all fishing vessels flagged in the region comply with international standards relating to vessels and crew

Previous Page Top of Page