With respect to the decisions taken about TACs at NAFO, all the decisions that were taken were within the range of the scientific advice. You cited a few stocks that saw an increase. There were also stocks such as yellowtail flounder for which--despite the scientific advice, which suggested there would be permission for an increase in TAC--NAFO decided to decrease the TACs.
Under the new convention, compared to the old convention, as I think you well understand, currently a party can object, set a TAC, and simply fish it. That was the situation in the past, in the 1970s, 1980s, and in the early 1990s, and was part of what created the demise of a number of stocks and one of the reasons we have 10 stocks in the NAFO regulatory area closed under moratoria.
The new NAFO convention, with its intention to modernize NAFO, with an emphasis on an ecosystem-based approach, the precautionary approach of conservation, sustainable use, elimination of illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing, is all reflective of the new and more recent international fisheries policy and instruments that have come into effect subsequent to the creation of the existing NAFO convention in 1978, such as the UN Fisheries Agreement. It's reflective of the provisions within that agreement for a binding dispute resolution for fisheries issues on the high seas. This is a high seas area fishery, which is guided by those sorts of international instruments.
In the NAFO convention, what we have that's different is that the parties at NAFO will come together and arrive at approaches through consensus rather than through the conflict of a vote and an objection. That pretty much continues to be the practice of NAFO in a contemporary way.
If there is an objection filed, the party now has to provide reasons for the objection on a narrow basis, in terms of why the decision of NAFO discriminated against them and so on. The ad hoc panel process that you referred to is something that, as you appreciate, hasn't operated yet because the new convention isn't in force. But it is contemplated that these types of disputes would be engaged on following the meetings of NAFO—which occur every year in September—on a timeframe that would see a resolution by the fisheries commission within a four- to six-month period, normally, in order that decisions can be in effect before much in the way of the fishery has occurred for the following calendar year, which is what NAFO meets in September to deal with, for example in September 2009 to set out TACs and fisheries approaches for the 2010 fisheries period.
So we would expect to see this provision operate in such a manner that we would see we would be giving effect to the resolution of these disputes not too far into the fishing season where they should be given effect. We would then be looking, if necessary, to invoke a formal dispute resolution under mechanisms such as the UN Fisheries Agreement. It's hoped that if one would have to do that after having it occur on a few occasions, perhaps we would not be having to do that too frequently again in the future.