I believe the previous convention reflected the context of the times it was established in. That was a time pre the moratoria that we had established where we saw 10 stocks in NAFO closed for over 10 years. It's a time before our industry and the industries of other countries and their communities had to deal with the hardship and the cost of seeing their fisheries curtailed. It's before a time when modern instruments were established for the management of fisheries on the high seas.
We have today a growing interest in the world on the part of the public, environmental NGOs, the fishing industry, and governments in ensuring that we secure fisheries so they're conducted on a sustainable basis. This is becoming a growing imperative in markets, as you would be aware, sir. It's not possible, the way it was in the past, that one could object, declare a quota that one would fish or even ignore to the point where one puts the conservation of a resource at risk in that one was clearly overfishing and expected to get away with that in the world and in the marketplace. So I do think things have changed very much.
Now we have a proposed convention that reflects the modern approaches, the heavy emphasis on cooperation in the adoption of management measures. We have mechanisms to bring to closure disputes that didn't exist before; and with the new convention, we have the tools in hand to ensure that we secure the sustainability and the conservation harvesting basis for the use of these resources for now and into future generations.