I alluded earlier to some specific areas that were part of the NAFO conservation and enforcement measures. Three of the ones I alluded to earlier came into effect on January 1. I guess the significant change to the convention that will be on the table in Montreal in April at a meeting for discussion is the objection procedure. In particular, for example, as we alluded to earlier, if we set a quota for the Faroe Islands of 3,000 tonnes and they fish 8,000 tonnes, they would have to go through an objection procedure—that would be through an independent—to justify their case. That's one specific aspect.
The other part that would change the convention I think for all countries, all states, is there would be an ecosystem-based approach and a precautionary approach. In other words, these send fundamental messages to people that, in the precautionary approach, we adhere to science. If we're going to fish stocks, there's a certain reference point, and a reference point dictates a certain level of fishing effort and quota, and adhering to these.
Those are some of the fundamental changes. We're certainly hopeful that the April meeting will bring positive results so that we can see some real, meaningful action by countries. You can forever and ever run your surveillance and do your monitoring; you have to change behaviour on the high seas. I think I alluded to that earlier. There has to be a fundamental awareness by countries to accept responsibility as flag states in carrying that out, and UNFA is one of the instruments that addresses that, in carrying out that responsibility. That's why it's so important. And in NAFO we had just about all the contracting parties agree with UNFA, except the two I alluded to earlier.