It's even more specific than that.
First of all, many of the fish stocks in the northeast Atlantic swim through the coastal state waters of more than one coastal state. They may swim through the waters of Norway, Iceland, and on the high seas, for example. So you have two coastal states involved and the high seas, while all the other parties would be fishing them. Some stocks may go through most of the members' waters. So it is a very different dynamic, a much more complex dynamic, and a bit like it is with the highly migratory species. That's why UNCLOS is different, as all of the states have to cooperate in a different way to be able to manage this.
In the case of NAFO, as I mentioned, yes, the United States, France, and Denmark are coastal states in the convention, but for the straddling stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, they are not coastal states. As a matter of fact, the U.S. and France have no straddling stocks at all. Denmark has one potential straddling stock. It's actually a stock that starts in the northeast Atlantic and goes through Norwegian waters, Icelandic waters, Greenland waters, the NAFO regulatory area, and Canada. That's the only stock where Greenland can claim any coastal state rights, but so can Iceland and Norway on the same stock. So it is a very different situation under NAFO.
Canada was recognized by all in the first NAFO Convention, when it was drafted by Canadians. With Canadians taking the pen, it was made clear that Canada was the coastal state. This new agreement has watered that down.