I appreciate your clarifying that, because I thought there might be a bit of confusion. Mr. Bob Applebaum would probably say to you that the UNFA provisions are pretty well similar to the NAFO ones except for one thing, the final thing. If a vessel is suspected of being in serious non-compliance with NAFO rules, under the UNFA the coastal state, say Canada, would be able to board, inspect, and require the flag state to impose appropriate sanctions and deal with it within three days. If the flag state did not, the coastal state would be able to draw those vessels into port and provide appropriate sanctions under domestic policy.
Under the revised NAFO convention, no such power would exist. UNFA provides the coastal state with a much more meaningful enforcement measure. The revised NAFO convention does not allow the coastal state to draw the infringing vessel into port.
Why is the NAFO solution better, in your opinion, than the UNFA solution? International law prescribes a way for Canada to board, inspect, and penalize an infringing vessel. Under NAFO, if the flag state doesn't do anything, then it's completely consistent within NAFO guidelines. Why would you want the revised NAFO rules instead of the rules under international law?