This is a point that I may ask my foreign affairs colleagues to assist me on.
Under the former convention, a party could simply object and establish a quota that they could either abide by or disregard. That was the situation, and it caused a number of conservation issues.
With the new proposed convention, where a party wishes to object to, for example, a quota decision of NAFO, they now have to come forward and provide explanations for their objections. This is new and it makes for transparency to the public and NGOs. The party would in all likelihood have to defend itself outside of NAFO.
There is also a process for establishing a fisheries commission or an ad hoc panel to bring resolution to the objection. Such a body would see if there's merit in the arguments being presented, working within the spirit of cooperation and consensus to come to a resolution that would be good for conservation. While that process is going on, the objecting party would have to adopt measures to ensure that the conservation requirements of NAFO are being respected.
If the decision of this process is not accepted, there is then recourse to a binding process under the UN Fisheries Agreement. While that process is under way, the parties would have to adhere to the decisions that arose out of the ad hoc process. Ultimately, the results of the dispute resolution under the UNFA would be binding on all parties in NAFO. This would bring closure to systemic and outstanding objections that in the past have put the resource at risk.