Certainly, I am a member of the group and I support the negotiation of a new approach to NAFO. NAFO, in its present form, should be totally changed. Whether we say that NAFO has to go or that NAFO has to be totally transformed becomes a semantic question, but some of the things in this provision are very difficult to accept.
In particular, I want to make reference to the fact that we have an objection procedure. There's an attempt to deal with the objection procedure in article XIV of the convention. It provides for a panel to be established, and there's a very complex, lengthy procedure for the establishment of the panel. There are two things in particular about this. One is that it goes on so long that the final outcome doesn't actually impact on the fishery until the fishery is over. The other thing is it's not binding. This is not a binding approach, and that's critically important.
Now, the other thing I wanted to say, just to finish up on that, is that you don't have to file an objection procedure. Most of the overfishing that has taken place over the last 30 years has been done without filing any objection procedure. Quite often, states that want to overfish simply go out and do it without telling anybody, and we don't know until after the fish is taken, until the end of the season.
So even if we had a binding dispute resolution system, which we don't have, we would still need a mechanism to deal with the issue of overfishing without the dispute, the objection procedure, being filed.
Those are major issues.