The main concern I have is that NAFO functioned in the first four or five years of its history primarily because Canada, as a coastal state, was in a position to buy compliance through surplus and non-surplus allocations of fish. Once the potential to trade off or make these allocations in exchange for compliance dried up, the problem with NAFO became increasingly more difficult, especially in the post-1985 period.
NAFO is a creature that has been around for about 30 years. My fear about these amendments is that they will meet the test, yet we'll have to suffer through another prolonged period with the same frustrations we've had to experience in recent years with NAFO.