(Segment 2) Workshop on sustainable fisheries, addressing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks

And just to add to that, there's also some work in the North Pacific that shows that some of the target species are depleted. Well, it's not just North Pacific, but other areas as well. And some of the target fish stocks are being fished before they're reproductively mature, which means that, you know, that's sort of fundamental fishery science there, that you don't fish a species before it has a chance to reproduce because there's zero chance of it replacing itself. And that's a really good point. So until we— regardless of what you do with the seafloor, until you correct that aspect of the fisheries, you're destroying the stocks to begin with.

And bottom trawling is less discriminating than almost any other gear type that you're going to use, so you're going to deplete quickly.

That was specifically for trawls. The size class that trawls are targeting is before the fish are reproductively mature.

So—

Depletion of habitat, depletion of stocks, hand in hand. Oh yes, Ivan.

Yeah, there we go. I learn as well. No, just to clarify again, I was not talking particularly about seamounts, And I think I clarified about that. And if you want to know my personal opinion, I will give it to you, but it's more closer to yours than you think on that matter. Now, and just to clarify, when I was talking about fish and non-fish, I was meaning about the general bottom trolling debate when, you know, sometimes that is the comparison. And again, you know, I advocate for closures of areas when needed. We do. I participate a lot. My day job is I manage a fishing company, so I participate a lot on the NAFO conferences, and we actively close areas there. Thank you. And a lot of them with the support of the industry. Our qualms come from other activities happening in that area after they're closed, so that's a different debate. So that is clear. And just to clarify on the bottom, on the first trawl, I completely agree with you. That is clear, and that's what I was referring that we fish in areas where that thing, that first trawl happened many times afterwards. I'm not saying that's nice, but it's like removing a patch of land for agriculture. I'm sorry to speak like this, it sounds horrible, but it is what it is, how we produce food. What I mean is, since that already happened, it's, you know, the usage of those areas.

Clarify.

That's clearly what I meant. And that is what I— when I was moving my head on the first impact, I agree with it, but then the subsequent trawls on the same area or spot do not remove, you know, 90% of the original existing on every troll. And the reason I say this is not because I don't think you know this and you clearly believe it, it's because sometimes data one way or the other, by one side or the other if you want, is twisted numerically and it creates confusion on the debate. And that's all I'm asking is, it's already a complicated debate enough not to do that. Not saying that you do it, that's what I wanted, I just wanted to say why I said it because I highly appreciate the work that was presented here, and I didn't want to seem to be demeaning towards it. Sorry. So just that clarification at the end. Thank you.

Thank you, Ivana. We're all now dying to know what your personal views are, but we'll, we'll leave that to the end of the day, perhaps. So thank you, everybody, for spending your free lunchtime with us. I guess the good thing is it's so hot outside that nobody really wanted to go out and have a stroll. Oh, there's another question.

No?

Yeah, go, Gabby, go.

Oh yeah, there we go. So I just was wondering if you could speak to either Dr. Bracco or Goode just about the idea that was brought up, sort of being described as the theory of sacrifice zones. It's my understanding that the theoretical frameworks of a sacrifice zone doesn't necessarily apply with the connectivity of a high-CC mount, and it's not in line with UN Sustainable Development Goals. But I was wondering if you had other thoughts based on your expertise as ecologists. Thank you.

Um, I would agree. I've seen a lot about, you know, freezing the fishing footprint, um, and I think for seamount fisheries in particular, that can be problematic because by nature how a lot of these have evolved is that the fishery has focused on a couple features to begin with and they deplete that stock so much that they move along the ridge. So I think if you were actually managing this long-term, free— I don't know if freezing the footprint would do great things for the fish stock itself or the habitat that they support. So yeah, thanks for the comment, Gabby.

Thank you, everybody. I'm going to release you now. You've got 10 minutes of free time before you're called back. But just to reflect on a comment that was made from this floor this morning that The UNGA resolutions focus on preventing significant adverse impacts and indicate that fishing should be limited to areas where it will not cause them. And I guess it's Savannah's takeaway, or her top line or bottom line or both, from this afternoon that SAIs on seamounts are the norm, not the exception. So as we reflect on those, I— you have 10 minutes before we reconvene. Thank you very much for spending your lunchtime with us.

Thank you.

We will actually, um, we will start with having the first panel reappear because we have 2 remaining speakers on the list, you know, for a proper reaction to that panel.

And I will also get like final remarks from the panelists, and then I will call on you from the second panel. So go back to the chair.

Exactly, exactly.

I think, you know, for each panelist, just make comments on whatever you think is most—

were the highlights for you from this session. You can choose whether you want to focus on something you had said yourself or the point you wanted to make where you can connect the dots a bit. I think that would be super interesting. Great.

I'll tell my colleagues as well to think about that part and make a reply statement. Great.

Okay, we'll see you up there very soon.

So, was it a good ride?

Yes.

Yes, I was very happy.

How would they factor this? Would they have to include that, or would you expect more?

No, I don't think it will be flexible. We ask people to take census.

We do that, right?

I'm not sure how flexible it is, but Okay, we just need to tell people to remember where you were before the break. You can check with the conference officers.

Yes.

Yeah.

So we start with the remaining 2 people from the speakers list.

Answer those questions. And in case there are any questions for you, you can tell us, we will take them, and then the maximum 2-minute closing remarks.

Sure, sure. Should we take the same seats?

Yeah, let's do that. Okay, I will stand over here.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I have the answers.

Okay. This is the first question. Thank you.

Oh, they have the important procedure. That's nice.

Okay.

Good afternoon, friends, colleagues. Good to be back in the room. I think we'll just start. Apparently, there is still a very long line at the Vienna Café. Um, so I suspect one of our panelists might find herself in there. But, um, we will— before we go any further and into this afternoon's panel number 2, we will finish what we started, the first panel from, from this morning's session. I had 2 people on the list of speakers already for the morning session panel 1, and I want to give them the floor. Before I do that, I wanted to check whether everybody, or mostly everyone, is sitting in the same seats as before, because remember, we have some technical constraints in terms of having group together, um, here towards the front of the room, and that means the conference officers will have to do their best to, to help me identify you when you ask for the floor. Um, but let's just help each other out with this. Uh, in, in case you don't remember where you were sitting before, you can ask the conference officers to my right. Now, on the speakers list, we already had the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative and Greenpeace. So those are the 2 people that— or organizations that are already asked for the floor, and we will start with taking the intervention from the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative. You have the floor.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair. My question was for Mr. Gutierrez again. In your last slide on point number 4, you mentioned that management of SAIs is more important than gear type. But as we saw from Ms. Goddard's presentation and we heard during the lunch event, there is abundant evidence in the scientific literature that specific gear types, specifically bottom trawls, do cause SAIs. And data that shows that as little as one trawl per decade can remove 60 to 90% of deep-sea corals and sponges, which are VME indicator taxa. And that same paper also shows that deep-sea habitats are more sensitive to trawling than our shallow water ecosystems. So with this in mind, I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on your statement that it's not as much about gear type and more about management, when, you know, from what I see in the literature, there are specific gear types that are much more impactful. Thank you.

Thank you so much, and thank you for the side event previously. This question was for whom, did you say again?

Please.

Mr. Guterres, you have the floor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question. My point was related to the fact that a particular gear should be assessed properly, should be monitored properly, and not just because it just has a contact with the bottom floor should be banned. And again, of course, IFAO acknowledged all the evidence about bottom trawling impacts, particularly on VMEs and corals, etc. That's not some point for discussions.

All right.

Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Next up, I have in seat 735, Greenpeace. You have the floor, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to respond to Ms. Goddard's presentation on identifying vulnerable marine ecosystems within Sprufmo in particular. Thing is that we are still often faced with the fact that even when not just the best available science but a significant and robust amount of scientific information is available to protect VMEs, RFMO's parties do not translate this science into protection measures. I'd like to ask the panellists, Ms. Goddard and the FAO in particular, whether they believe the information presented supports that SPROFMO is addressing appropriately the impacts of bottom fishing on VMEs through its spatial management measures, the bottom trawling management areas in particular. Another question is whether this spatial management approach meets the UNGA requirements in your views. given VMEs remain unprotected within these BTMEs— BTMAs. Finally, I would like to ask Ms. Goddard if there are any precedents in ESPOFMO for identifying and closing an area known to contain VMEs. Thank you.

Excellent. Would you like to go first, Katrina, and then— There was a question for a list for you, Guterres. Yes, let's do this in this order.

Okay, sure.

I think you can— that's working, you can hear me. I would firstly respond to say that the evidence is very clear. SPRIFMO to date has failed to implement VME protection measures within the historic bottom fishing management areas, those BTMAs, the hashed lines I showed you in our presentation where bottom trawling is still occurring, and they've failed to do that. So they've failed to identify where those VMEs are, and they have not closed any of those areas despite the fact that SPRIFMO does have a conservation management measure, CMM03-2025, which specifically does require, or provides provisions to meet these UNGA resolutions. So SPRIFMO has not got an approved or endorsed framework to identify, so they've used that to delay identifying areas to close. The opportunity, I would say, is that SPRIFMO could follow suit and be proactive like other RFMOs, and they could close seamounts as we've heard today from some of us and the value of doing that. Also they could use the existing conservation management measure that has been endorsed which has a specific Annex 9 which allows any identified VMEs to be protected. So there is a measure that could be used, it comes down to whether or not these RFMOs and states will take and use the best available available information that does exist to actually implement these resolutions. And I would say that we need to give some precaution when I hand over to my FAO colleague up here on the panel with some of those percentages being quoted. Just because it might sound like a small fraction of the high seas is open to bottom fishing, that's not really realistic. Those figures are all that ocean.

Thank you.

What I'm referring— or what we often refer to is actually what is the fishable depth? What are the actual areas where they can fish of that that remains at risk? And so in terms of SPRIFMO, the areas that remain at risk are those historic footprints because there are no VME-specific closures.

Thank you for the question. So, Pregmo has, has a relatively well-developed spatial management framework. There's about a few conservation management measures, particularly 03, the designated fishing areas, and 70% habitat protection. It's true that some gaps remain. One of the main points that I mentioned in my presentation is on stock assessment and harvest strategies for key target species. Observer coverage and compliance consistency across members also should be improved. Particularly the seamounts, the Salas y Gómez and the Nazca Ridge, those in the South Pacific just entered the scientific agenda in 2024, and I agree that the protective measures still need to be defined. So, the direction is right, but again, the pace and the completeness of the implementation is something that should be promoted across members. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Nicholas. If no other panelists want to respond, I would move on to the next speaker on the list. On mic number 728, we have the NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Thank you.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. This question is for Mr. Gutierrez with the FAO. In your presentation, you presented data on the state of the stocks that indicated that Camlar stocks were in better condition than other RFMOs, and that was mainly for toothfish. Did you consider that Camlar has banned bottom trawling on the high seas since 2026, in addition to your comment that Camlar also has higher stock targets. Camilar has also a system of VME protection rules that apply to bottom longlining, including registered VMEs and VME risk areas that many RFMOs do not use. Thanks so much.

Thank you for the question. Yes, we have considered— so as you may know, Camilar has very well monitored and assessed fisheries, and all commoner fisheries has been included into the state of the stocks, the federal state of the stocks, and in general terms are in a better sustainability status than, than at least the average. Yes, indeed, the Antarctic toothfish is, is a long-run fishery. It's not a bottom trawl fishery, and that's Thank you very much.

And this was actually a nice segue, I think, maybe into our panel number 2 this afternoon. Before I get the panelists for panel number 2 up here, I would like to ask all the panelists from panel 1 to make brief closing remarks. And I will take those in the same order as the presentations, starting with you, Mr. Guterres.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair, Mrs.

Chair.

Thanks everyone who contributed to the panel today, panelists, delegates, and all who joined the discussions. A few thoughts from FAO's side based on the discussions. First, today I think we have confirmed that both progress has been made but there are still improvements to be made. There's broad agreement that the governance architecture for bottom fisheries and deep-sea stocks has been transformed over the past 2 decades and that fish stock sustainability Funding for science and the persistent challenge of unregulated fishing remains the priority. This convergence of diagnosis across different perspectives around the room is itself useful for FAO and of course we welcome it. Second, today has also reinforced something FAO considers fundamental, which which is effective fisheries management is key and should integrate all relevant dimensions: environmental sustainability, food security, livelihoods, gender equity, and the broader context of how different food systems interact and affect each other. The discussion had also reminded us that the scientific foundation underpinning management decisions including VME mapping, stock assessment, and ecosystem understanding must continue to be strengthened. Better governance and better science must advance together.

And we—

where the environmental costs are too high, this is where impact assessments cannot demonstrate the significant adverse impact on VMEs or fish stocks can be prevented, then fishing should be avoided in line with the Deep Sea Fisheries Guidelines. And third, perhaps today's discussions has itself pointed in this direction. The space for dialogue and conversions between different perspectives is, is very real and valuable. Members through their RFMOs, industry, civil society, and scientists all bring essential knowledge and legitimacy to the process. Conservation and sustainable use are not opposing objectives. In fact, they are, in IFAW's view, two sides of the same commitment. Of course, IFAW's role is to provide the technical and normative foundations that support this dialogue, and we stand ready and committed to do so. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the FAO perspective. And next up, we would have some closing remarks from ICES. Simon, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. From an ICES perspective, 3 areas I think it's helpful to comment. Firstly, on the science that's been catalyzed by the UNGA resolutions. Secondly, some reflections on our benchmark process and the opportunities that exist to engage in that. And then thirdly, addressing some helpful questions from participants earlier today, a comment on the best available science and the role of precaution. So, in terms of the resolutions, the science and technical elements of the UNGA resolutions have driven directly and indirectly much development of science and advice since 2022, a result probably of their influence on funding science and the requests we receive from our requesters for advice. We welcome the progress that's been made as a result of that and the interactions with other FMOs as well as the academic sector that have resulted in our expert groups, and this has really helped develop our thinking about the science and the future advice we might give. And we welcome, I should say, especially as well the interaction with FAO in relation to deep sea stocks and methods development as well as in relation to VME. As a result of the scientific and technical developments driven in large part by these resolutions, we're confident in ICES that we can considerably strengthen the knowledge basis for our own recurrent advice at the 2027 benchmark. In relation to the benchmark, for those of you not familiar with ICES, I would emphasize that the benchmark workshop and the workshops leading into the benchmark are effectively public meetings, where engagement is, of course, expected in a science— scientific capacity, but we welcome online engagement. There's a huge amount, as we've already heard today, to be learned from cross-fertilization of ideas, and all these workshops will be advertised by ICs, and we do welcome engagement from specialists in relevant areas. The final point I'd like to make on behalf of ICs is about best available science and precaution. This stems from some of the comments that were made this morning. The use of the best available science doesn't mean that we need to know everything before we give advice, but it means using what we have when it's sufficiently mature and uncontested that we can reach some form of conver— consensus. And the confidence in the knowledge base can be quantified as uncertainty, and I think it's a helpful endpoint for us as science advisors to be able to assess uncertainty about VME presence, which you might define as a range of probabilities of VME presence within which the truth lies, or equally, based on some of the comments we've heard at lunchtime, uncertainty about the risk of SAI. occurring or having occurred, defined as the range of probabilities of SAI within which the true impact lies. And from our point of view, this uncertainty, which we can quantify scientifically, becomes a proxy for risk. And as a result of that, it allows managers to make a risk judgment based on our advice, i.e., a risk judgment that balances the risk of not protecting a VME when one is present with the risk of unnecessarily restricting fishing activity when it's not. So in other words, where to set the bar? And I think for us going forward now through the benchmark process, this definition of uncertainty will be a key part of the way in which we hope to develop our advice in future. Thank you. I'm sorry it was more than 2 minutes.

Well, it is a very interesting, pressing topic. Thank you very much. And our third panelist, Ellen Ketchington, Senior Benthic Ecologist in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, as you will remember, unfortunately wasn't able to be with us here in person, but has sent her final remarks to the secretary of the meeting. So, Michaela, you have the floor on behalf of Ellen.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madame Moderator. Uh, Dr. Kenshington has made the following reflection: climate change has already started to impact VMEs in ABNJ, and model distribution projections suggest that the impact may be severe for some species in some areas. It will be important that areas are closed to protect VMEs are monitored to ensure their effectiveness in the future. Revaluation of the closed areas to ensure that they continue to provide effective protection should be a focus of future reporting.

Thank you.

Thank you for those concise closing remarks, Alan, and our best to you. Simi, you now have the floor on behalf of IUCN.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Moderator. Well, we appreciate the work that has been done already to recognize the value of these sensitive, rich marine ecosystems, the work that's been done on research, and where there have been closures, those closures. We need more science to be able to manage for long-term sustainability, and until we have that, the General Assembly resolutions call for restraint. The science tells— that we have tells us that we can't operate in sectoral silos. We're dealing with connected dynamic ecosystems and we need to think about the cumulative impacts of all of our activities, natural activities, and overall problems like climate change. The advent of the BB&J agreement provides new processes and new forums to deploy tools to support conservation and sustainability. And IUCN looks forward to the spirit of cooperation that our moderator for this workshop has fostered, and we hope that that will continue as we work towards BB&J implementation and towards the fall and the outcome of this workshop. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. And last but not least, again, I give the floor to Ms. Katrina Goddard from the North Tech Polytechnic. You have the floor.

Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Moderator, organisers, delegates, and all of you participants. Thanks for the opportunity to present here. While there is— I do agree— while there is always a need for more science and a desire for more science, and more data, and speaking as a scientist, more funding for said science. We need to acknowledge that we have enough information to take action to implement these resolutions. We don't need to wait. We need political will by member states to use the best available information. These UNGA resolutions require member states and RFMOs to identify where VMEs are known to occur or likely to to occur and adopt conservation management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems. The evidence that bottom trawling causes significant adverse impacts on seamounts is well established in the scientific literature and was highlighted so nicely by Dr. Bakko Taylor and Dr. Gould in the lunchtime session. We have demonstrated with our expedition that even seamounts that have been trawled, still host VMEs, for example within SPRIFMO bottom trawl management areas. We need states and RFMOs to apply a precautionary approach, close all seamounts and seamount-like features on the high seas. This will not only help prevent ongoing significant adverse impacts to VMEs but will also benefit those other important species including biodiversity beyond our VMEs. Relying on restricting bottom fishing, specifically bottom trawling, to historic fishing footprints is not precautionary. It simply does not go far enough to prevent SAIs on VMEs, and we demonstrated that with our evidence. A clear step is to focus on seamounts within fishable depth, which we have heard several times today contributes to less than 0.5% of global landings. Lastly, I know I'm short on time, I will say if you're not already convinced that seamount ecosystems are ecologically significant and warrant protection, perhaps you saw some of that beautiful footage from the lunchtime presentations, but research shows out of particularly New Zealand but elsewhere that seamounts that are relatively close together, a few tens of kilometres apart, can host entirely unique and even endemic assemblages of macroinvertebrates, your corals and your sponges. So the argument isn't about spatial scale or looking at SAIs at an FMA level. The science demonstrates that we need to be looking at VMEs at a seamount level. So we look forward to working with the SPRIFMO-SC to progress our expedition research and hopefully turn some of our direct evidence into some meaningful spatial management. And I would just say that the UNGA resolutions, from our perspective, are clear. It's not about a balance.

It's—

with regard to VMEs, it's about identifying and taking action to prevent SAIs.

Thank you.

Excellent. And I thank all our excellent panelists and everybody who participated in the very lively discussions we've had so far. I have one remaining person on the list of speakers, but we're having a hard time locating that mysterious person. If anybody is trying to make remarks, please maybe raise your hand.

No?

Okay.

We have ghosts among us, it seems.

Thank you.

Um, with that, I'm closing panel 1. Thank you once again, and I would like to ask the panelists for panel number 2 to come up. But before that, we give them all a big hand from panel 1.

Number 2, Elisabetta.

Number 3, you want?

Yeah, yeah. Online, yes. So, Marco and Gabriella. Yeah, thank you. Okay, please. Are we ready?

Yeah.

Distinguished delegates, friends, colleagues, thank you for your patience. Now we will begin with our second segment entitled Progress Made by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Arrangements in Addressing the Impact of bottom fisheries on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks, in particular through the implementation of relevant paragraphs of Resolutions 64/72, 66/68, and 77/118. We will hear 5 presentations under Segment 2. 2 of which are pre-recorded. RFMOs could be said are the backbone of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, for instance, and the architecture that comes with it. And I'm thrilled that we have so many of you here on the panel in person, and of course the one that made the pre-recorded and took the time, pre-recorded presentation. I will now introduce the panelists participating in this segment. Firstly, Mr. Darius Kampil, Executive Secretary of the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission, NEAFK. The title of his presentation is Progress in Addressing the Impacts of Bottom Fisheries on VMEs and the Long-Term Sustainability of Deep Sea Fish Stocks. Secondly, we have Ms. Brynhildur Benediktsdottir, and that's her name correctly pronounced for once, Executive Secretary of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO. The title of her presentation is NAFO Advances in Managing Bottom Fishing Impacts and Stock Sustainability. Thirdly, we have Ms. Elisabetta Petula Morello, Senior Fishery Officer of the General Fisheries Commission of the Mediterranean, the GFCM. The title of her presentation is The Experience of GFCM in Addressing the Impacts of Bottom Fisheries on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and the Long-Term Sustainability of Deep Sea Fish Stocks. This is pre-recorded, and if she's listening, hello and good to, to be able to hear from you. Fourth is Mr. Marco Milardi, sitting on my right, Science Officer in the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement. The title of his presentation is Progress by the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, SIOFA, on bottom fishing, VME protection, and deep sea stocks. Fifth, we have Ms. Gabrielle Carmine, postdoctoral fellow at the Earth Commons School in Georgetown University. The title of her presentation is Academic Perspective on the Work of RFMO's ACE in Addressing the Impacts of Bottom Fisheries on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and the Long-Term Sustainability of Deep Sea Fish Stocks. Adding a bit of color to the panel. Now, as we did earlier this morning, I would propose to hear from our first 3 panelists before an initial round of discussions. Thereafter, we will hear from the remaining 3 panelists. Now, and just a note in terms of Ms. Petula Morello, In case the— given that the technology works, she should be able to respond to questions from the audience by listening online. All right, let's go. I now wish to give the floor to our first 3 panellists under Segment 2. Mr. Darius Campbell from NEAF, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, everyone. As from my very unimaginative title, I'll be talking to you about progress at NEAFK on VME and on deep sea fisheries, but also I'll try and give a bit more of a personal view on future prospects. So NEAFK Convention covers the Northeast Atlantic, and you've already seen the map, and my parties are the coastal states around that, and we have The usual sort of management of fisheries for economic, social and environmental benefits, and our measures are focused on areas beyond national jurisdiction, and deep sea fisheries make up a small part of our total catch. Not only do we have the social and the economic drivers in our objectives of our convention, but we also have since 2006 set out quite explicitly our environmental objectives, and that's to not negatively impact ecosystems and to also to support biodiversity conservation. And that's driven ecosystem-based management of fisheries and specific measures on VME and deep sea stocks. For NEAFK, our VME measures predated the first UNGA resolution. From 2004 onwards. As you can see from these maps, we had a gradually expanding process towards 2014 where we end up with our, you know, near-final version of our VME regulations, and that means that in our high seas areas pretty much all of the area is covered by a mix of of restricted fishing areas that need exploratory fishing protocols, which are the buff areas, and then the red areas, which are the closed areas to bottom fishing, which leaves only small areas left for our existing fishing— bottom fishing management areas, which are around 2% of our total areas. So that's quite typical for a lot of the RFMOs.

anyway.

In IAF, we also have an annual process of advice from ICES. ICES have already spoken to you about their expertise. They also help us with advice to renew these areas, the closed areas, every 5 years, and also they support us in a review of the whole recommendation on VME, and that review was last due in 2012, It's a little bit overdue due to cancellations of many of our meetings, but ICES has already provided its scientific advice for that latest review, and Simon touched on that earlier. And that's basically pointing to areas where we might need to evolve some of the regulation in terms of scientific understanding from the last UNGA workshop from 2022, and of course the findings of this will also inform us. So that's the process that we have in NEAF. We have quite a rigorous process as well to make sure that we have compliance with the closures, and we— that means that we, the Secretariat, is always looking very carefully at the tracks of of our vessels, the catches of the vessels, and all the gear data we have. And we have plenty of means to monitor activity through our VMS, electronic logbooks, inspections at sea and at port, and various control measures and fines, etc. I think the big change to point to you since the last workshop was that we are now operating a new system, the UN Flux system, that means we actually get hall-by-hall reporting from our fishing vessels. Half of our parties are already in that process and another half will be moving into it by the end of this year, and that gives a great deal more information to the Secretariat and to the parties in terms of monitoring and compliance. And we also report that publicly through our compliance reports. And these again will look through the specific infringements that we have in relation to our VME regulations. So that's been sort of like an average of 4 or so a year, which means people straying into the area. But again, it's not something that we consider have been any major incursions, but of course those are followed by the party taking action against that vessel if they have made a serious infringement. So we not only have the VME measures, we also have measures to do with deep sea fishing regulations and NEAFK has agreed its approach to deep sea fishing in 2008 and that was basically making sure that we categorize categorised all our stocks according to our knowledge base and also making sure that we applied a precautionary approach so that any new fisheries or any rapidly expanding fishing were immediately looked at in much more detail by our process. One positive sign to point to in recent years is that the Spurdog, had been overfished in the early 2000s and that led to a ban on targeted fishing on that stock and now we have a much more recovery of that biomass of that fishery and that means that we are able to restart a fishery at 22,000 tonnes per year, but again my parties are being very cautious on that and only fishing 10th of that scientific advice. So that's an example from our deep sea fishing side. I should mention as well on the VME side that there is one current issue that we are dealing with, which is that one of our parties has started a new bottom contact fishery for snow crab in the continental shelf under its national jurisdiction in the Barents Sea. And while there are no closed areas for VME in this area, it nevertheless is categorized as a restricted area under Recommendation 19/2014, and that would normally require an exploratory fishing— exploratory fishery. So our contracting parties hold differing views on the legal perspectives of this activity in light of UNCLOS, but that's an ongoing issue that needs resolution, and I wonder if that's something that other RFMOs may also need to be tackling at some point. One thing I wanted to talk about in terms of developments was that we are the first RFMO— and sitting next to me is the second RFMO— to identify an Other Effective Conservation Measure, an OECM, which is under the CBD framework, and that's recognizing that there are conservation and biodiversity values from our closed areas. And this is a process that contributes to the 30 by 30 target under the Kunming-Montréal Biodiversity Framework, and I think it shows that we do have the proper governance and enforcement measures in place, and that we can demonstrate biodiversity benefits. And ICES has added to this process by holding this year a workshop to further develop guidance on how to monitor the biodiversity outcomes from such OECM. Part of the OECM process is also to ensure that there are no overlap areas with MPAs, so the definition excludes any areas that have an MPA. There is the OSPAR, the Regional Seas Convention, in the same area as NEAF, and we've ended up with a sort of patchwork of ROECM, which are the red areas on the right-hand map, which also are underlined— are underlying OSPAR's MPAs in terms of measures. So, in fact, the darker red areas are under the pink; that tells you that's where we've got our VME closures, but the pink layers on top are OSPAR's MPAs. And that process of describing our OECM, OSPAR's MPAs, was done through something called a joint narrative that we did with OSPAR on describing how our bottom fishing measures and their MPA measures interact. And I think that's a really interesting exercise where the OECM has started to bring the VME measures into the discussion with a Regional Seas Convention in terms of their measures as well. And we're also looking at other aspects of OECM, so we're wondering about whether we should also identify potential OECM in restricted areas that are shallower than 1,400 metres. The reason we've chosen 1,400 metres is because that's the maximum realistic depth that trawling can go to in our area, so we only want to recognise the benefits of OECM where we can demonstrate an actual impact of a measure. So we're looking at these lilac areas as potential OECM for NEAF, but that might also need to be allied with rethinking of our recommendation on VME to see whether there are wider aspects such as other benthic organisms to consider in our exploratory fishing protocols. So that's a development based on VME. I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the BBNJ as well, and I think these are something that I thought perhaps I should give some of my personal views, just to think about how these— how the BBNJ might interact with the UNGA resolutions we're also talking about at this workshop. So one aspect has already been mentioned is connectivity, So that where the BBNJ talks about networks and connectivity of area-based management tools, I'm thinking about what role our VME measures and the protections for sponges and corals could play in this, and also thinking again about the 3D interactions between MPAs and these bottom fishing measures. And another side I thought was also of relevance in terms of the work that we do on VME is the lessons that we might offer for area-based management tools under BBNJ. So as I've mentioned, we have regular reviews and renewals of our closed areas. They're not set in perpetuity. We have these reviews, we have means that every 5 years we renew the areas according to the scientific advice. If the VME are still there, then we renew, but it shows that we don't have a short-term thinking. We're having a process that's evidence-driven, and that means every 5 years we're renewing our VME closures according to the science that's backing that up, and I think that that kind of reflective approach to MPAs could also be useful, especially as MPAs might need to adapt in the light of climate change and other pressures. OECM in restricted areas will be something again we're looking at again, but I think as a model of EIA, the VME process again is a very good model. And then the other side, I think, again to think about the BBNJ is that it's there for a more coordinated approach to conservation in the high seas and in ABNJ, and so thinking again about the protection of VME closures from other pressures such as mining or whatever offers an opportunity through the BBNJ to have better coordination between all the different sectors working in the high seas and again in relation to the protection of VME closures that we can only do under our fisheries measures. So this is my last slide and I think just the last thing to think about again is, as I've mentioned, NEAFK is having another push on an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, and I think that will impinge both on its understanding of deep sea fishing and also on its VME measures. And we've been very active partners in the FAO Deep Sea Fisheries Project, which you'll hear of later tomorrow, I think, and again, that's something that will influence our views on how we manage our deep sea fisheries. and VME. So, thank you very much, Chair. I'm sorry I've gone over time, but—

Thank you very much, Darius Campbell, for your presentation. And I now wish to give the floor to our second panellist this afternoon. Ms. Brynhildur Benediktsdóttir, you have the floor on behalf of NAFO.

Hello and good afternoon. Darius has saved me some time because NIAFC and NAFO are very much sister organizations. All members of NIAFC are also members in NAFO, and then we add some others into the mix, but we are very much aligned in the bottom fishing measures that are taken across the North Atlantic, with some nuances, as always, in the organizational setup. So I'll give you some NAFO background. I'll do that very quickly. Then I'll go through the NAFO work in addressing significant adverse impacts. And then I'll give you a very short overview of the work that NAFO has been doing on the precautionary approach framework, which is very much the center of the stock sustainability issue. So I'll leave the BP&J thoughts to my predecessor here in the Thank you. So NAFO is an old organization established in 1979 and was preceded therefore by an even older organization, but it— the objectives are to ensure long-term conservation, sustainable use, but the A new convention came into force in 2017, also included precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach to fisheries. So we are here on the top beside Niavk, and on the right there you have the NAFO convention and regulatory area, and the regulatory area is the dark blue one. So 13 contracting parties, 12 species under direct management, but all species fished by NAFO vessels are really under NAFO management. That is, all bycatch is to be reported and looked act by the NAFO Scientific Council and is followed very closely if there are developments that need to be addressed. So, the NAFO setup is slightly different from NEAF's because we also have a Scientific Council within the NAFO organization, which is comprised of NAFO contracting parties, scientists which meet under the umbrella of NAFO and give advice to the Commission. On both the NAFO ecosystem approach and precautionary approach work, we have benefited from having joint Commission Scientific Council meetings which are held in a slightly less formal manner than the other meetings. They give the opportunity for a more informal dialogue and tackling difficult matters like how do you balance out closing areas for VME protection and also minimizing the effects of the ongoing fishing operations. And this is a very difficult dialogue if it's done properly, and it needs a lot of back and forth. So if we just give the highlights, the first NAFO VME areas were closed for bottom fishing in 2007. In 2009, the fishing footprint was set down, and then we take it from there. And with the more detailed timeline, we have the first seamount closures in 2007. In 2009, the— we had the first coral areas closed and additional seamounts.

Thank you.

And again, the bottom fishing footprint and encounter protocols were set down in 2009. 2010, additional coral sponge closure thresholds. And then we did this first formal working group of managers and scientists addressing the ecosystem approach in 2014, and I'm happy to have the co-chair of that particular thing in, in the area here. So that was also when the first comprehensive serious VME closure review was done. The aim is to do this every 5 years. It was done in 2014, and then it was done again in 2021, impacted a bit by COVID, but also seriously because this is a very scientific-heavy workload. We have the scientists already more or less fully occupied with addressing all kinds of issues on stock and so forth. And then we added on top of that the request to review every 5 years the VME closures. We are so fortunate in the NAFO area to have a lot of data on VMEs and on the ecosystem and so forth. There are both scientific research vessels, both from the EU and from Canada, out in the regulatory area every year, but that also means there's a lot of work going through all that data we have. And as you heard maybe this morning from Alan Ketchington, we have some serious scientific work being done within NAFO on all kinds of cutting-edge things around VMEs, like connectivity. And so, this takes time. We were supposed to be finalising it this year, but it's not going to be finalized, the 3rd review, until 2027. But I think enough of our contracting parties thought that would be worth the wait to get a solid scientific basis for the review. And we're expecting a lot of new things to come out. So, Just to give you an outline of where the footprint lies and where the closures are. So the blue ones are the seamounts, which were the first closures and were very much done on the basis that seamounts just needed to be protected. The red ones are more nuanced sponge and coral closures and seapen closures, and most of them are within the footprint. Most of the seamount closures are outside the footprint. That said, the guidelines for deep-sea fishing are also on stock sustainability, and I think the core of that work in NAFO can be said to be the work on the NAFO precautionary approach. And that stretches even further back than the VME closures, with trying to figure out the sort of how that this can be brought to a practicable precautionary approach on setting TACs for various stocks. So, we established the Risk-Based Management Group, which is also a— both Scientific Council Commission group, which started in 2014. That reviewed the precautionary approach taken by NAFO at that time, initiated a review in 2015, adopted terms of reference in '16, and then we had the amended NAFO Convention even more clear on that precaution needed to be taken into account. Performance Review, and then the Scientific Council Working Group on Precautionary Approach. We had a Scientific Council and Commission workshop on the precautionary approach in 2022. And the guidelines from that dialogue fed into the revised NAFLD precautionary approach framework. Which you see, which in NAFO is called the NAFO Leaf, so which sets down guidelines on where to set TACs if you are in the cautious zone. So we have the critical zone, cautious zone, and healthy zone, and the leaf encompasses the TAC decisions that can be taken if you are in the cautious zone with your stocks. And that also encompasses a lot of prediction 3 years ahead on whether you're going to— where you're going to be in the zone, and guidelines around where the advice lies in particular. I'm just going to refer you to the NAFO website. It's very technical. It's been extensively researched, and I think for those interested, that would be the most profitable way of doing things. So this is the framework, the reference points I mentioned, and so forth. So minimizing harmful impacts, and preserve marine biodiversity. Some of this is work in progress. As you can see, preserve the biodiversity, the Scientific Council tells us at the point where we are now, this cannot be evaluated, but it wants to keep this on the record as being worked on and needs to be discussed. So all of this is, again, very scientific-heavy work. The scientists have long said that they have too much to do, and then we get the BBNJ, which I'm not going to talk about again, coming on top of everything. So we need to make sure our scientists get back up to do the work we are actually asking them to do. And that is one of the reasons why NAFO is launching its 3rd performance review, a decision on that, on this annual meeting in September, where the decision on whether we— whether a performance review should be launched looking at the scientific process within NAFO and the scientific process, how it aligns with Commission work plan. And that has been— that discussion has very much been pushed by a very heavy workload with all kinds of new things coming from the General Assembly and FAO and so forth. And of course, like, uh, we have to enforce every— all of the management measures, both the, um, that the sustainability of the stocks is not threatened by overfishing, or— and the closed areas are closed. So we have VMS And we have hole-by-hole data and more or less the same measures that NEAF has as well. So we also have onboard observers. We have port— we have high seas boarding. We have vessels from contracting parties out in the regulatory area which can board any vessel that's fishing, and they can contact the Secretariat via private network to see all of the positions and hull-by-hull data that each and every vessel has sent with very frequent intervals. So it is also not left to chance whether these things are enforced. So, thank you.

Thank you warmly. Brynhildur Benediktóttir, on behalf of NAFO. And it's apparent from what we've heard so far that the devil is in the detail when it comes to good management. Now, as of our 3rd panellist, Ms. Betula Morello. She was unable to attend in person and prepared a recorded presentation, which we will play for you now. But, uh, happy to report that she is listening and following online. So hello, and, and thank you again for, for the recording.

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, Colleagues and partners, my name is Elisabetta Betulla Morello and I'm Senior Fishery Officer at the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, the GFCM. It is a pleasure to contribute to this 2-day multi-stakeholder workshop dedicated to the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks. I would like to share the experience of the GFCM in translating the principles contained in successive UNGA resolutions into management measures across the Mediterranean. Our experience demonstrates that it is possible to simultaneously pursue 2 objectives that are sometimes perceived as competing: ensuring that fisheries continue to provide food, employment, and economic opportunities for coastal communities, and protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems. The GFCM is the regional fisheries management organization of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and for the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Today, the GFCM brings together 24 Contracting Parties and 5 Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties, creating a platform for regional cooperation in one of the most complex and diverse marine regions in the world. Our mandate covers both fisheries and aquaculture with the overarching objective of ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources while promoting sustainable aquaculture development. The GFCM provides a mechanism through which countries collectively adopt binding recommendations and non-binding resolutions, coordinate scientific work, and implement common management measures. The Mediterranean is one of the world's most remarkable marine biodiversity hotspots. It hosts a wide range of vulnerable marine ecosystems, including cold-water corals, coral gardens, sponge aggregations, seamount ecosystems, and submarine canyons. These habitats provide essential ecological functions and support many commercially important species. At the same time, the region faces exceptional pressures. The Mediterranean is recognized as a hotspot of climate change and biodiversity loss. It is also characterized by a very long history of fishing activity and an intricate governance landscape involving numerous countries and jurisdictions. For the GFCM, the challenge is therefore clear. How do we reconcile biodiversity conservation with the livelihoods of fishing communities that depend on marine resources? This question lies at the heart of our approach to ecosystem-based fisheries management, where long-term fishery sustainability and biodiversity conservation are mutually reinforcing objectives. The GFCM's management of bottom fisheries is firmly grounded in the ecosystem-based approach. The successive UNGA resolutions provide a clear framework: prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems, apply the precautionary approach, conduct scientific assessments, and ensure the sustainability of deep-sea fisheries. Over the past 2 decades, the GFCM has created an operational regional framework that puts these principles into practice. This framework combines adaptive multiannual management plans, spatial protection measures, the so-called fisheries restricted areas, scientific monitoring protocols for VME encounters and exploratory fishing, and a growing knowledge base on sensitive benthic habitats into an effective advisory framework that supports scientifically informed, transparent, and adaptive management while ensuring environmental, economic, and social objectives are met. Of course, success depends on combining science, governance, monitoring, and enforcement into a coherent system. One of the key pillars of the GFCM approach is the adoption of multiannual management plans. Today, 11 management plans are in place involving more than 6,300 vessels across the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. 4 of these manage deep-sea fisheries, in particular deepwater shrimp fisheries. These plans combine several management tools including catch limits and/or effort controls, technical measures, data reporting obligation, spatial and temporal closures, and monitoring, control, and surveillance measures. Importantly, they are designed to be adaptive. As scientific knowledge improves, management measures can be adjusted to ensure that fishing mortality is reduced to sustainable levels while maintaining viable fisheries. The long-term approach supports stock recovery and contributes directly to the implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management. Another critical element of the GFCM strategy is the network of fisheries restricted areas, also known as FRAs. The GFCM has established 11 FRAs Covering approximately 1.76 million square kilometers. Within these areas, specific fishing activities are prohibited or restricted to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, safeguard essential fish habitats, and support stock rebuilding. Of these, 4 address the protection of VMEs specifically, while another 2 address both VMEs and essential fish habitats. The recently established Otranto Channel FRA in the Adriatic Sea provides a good example. It protects numerous VME indicator species including bamboo corals and other sensitive deep-sea communities that also host essential habitats for commercially important species such as deepwater shrimps. The GFCM scientific bodies are continuing to develop advice for new spatial protection measures, most recently towards the protection of a new FRA in the Cavaliere coral mounds in the western Mediterranean. These measures reflect the important and growing role of fisheries management in achieving biodiversity objectives. In this sense, a significant milestone was achieved in 2005 when the GFCM adopted a region-wide prohibition on bottom trawling deeper than 1,000 meters, effectively creating a very large deep-sea fisheries restricted area. Importantly, it was also adopted before widespread evidence of fishing impacts accumulated, making it a clear example of precautionary management. The GFCM continues to strengthen this precautionary approach, and since 2023, pilot studies have been carried out at the sub-regional level to assess the environmental and socioeconomic implications of raising the trawl depth limit from 1,000 meters to 800 meters. The results suggest limited socioeconomic impacts of such a measure while potentially supporting biodiversity conservation and stock recovery. Several GFCM members have already implemented the 800-meter limit nationally. These experiences provide evidence for future regional discussions and demonstrate a willingness amongst countries to consider stronger protection when supported by science. Beyond spatial closures, the GFCM has started developing through non-binding resolutions a comprehensive technical framework specifically dedicated to VME protection. This includes encounter protocols that identify VME indicator species and prescribe management responses when sensitive habitats are encountered, as well as procedures for exploratory deep-sea fisheries, mapping of existing fishing grounds and measures to prevent significant adverse impacts. A particularly important tool of the GFCM is the database on sensitive benthic habitats and species. Through an annual data call and scientific analyses, this database provides critical information on the distribution of vulnerable marine ecosystem indicator species and supports evidence-based spatial management decisions. Together, these mechanisms translate the precautionary and ecosystem-based principle of the UNGA resolutions into practical operational tools. What have these efforts achieved? The latest GFCM flagship biennial publication, The State of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries, published in late 2025, provides some encouraging evidence. Since 2013, when management plans started being implemented in conjunction with fisheries restricted areas, overall exploitation levels have decreased by around 50%, and biomass has increased by approximately 25%. And this was particularly evident in species under management plans. Over this same period, the proportion of assessed stocks subject to overexploitation declined from 87% to 52%. While many challenges still remain, these trends demonstrate that coordinated management can produce measurable improvements in stock status and contribute to ecosystem recovery. Allow me to conclude with 4 key messages. Firstly, ensuring sustainable fisheries and protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems are complementary objectives that need to evolve adaptively. Science-based and adaptive management remains essential for responding to emerging knowledge and evolving environmental conditions. Secondly, large-scale spatial protection measures, including deep-sea closures and fisheries restricted areas, are actively safeguarding VMEs in the Mediterranean by preventing significant adverse impacts. Thirdly, Successful implementation depends on strong scientific advice coupled with robust monitoring, control, and surveillance systems, as well as sustained capacity development. And lastly, fisheries are fundamentally about people. Millions depend on marine resources for their livelihoods, food security, and cultural identity. Sustainable management must therefore remain both environmentally ambitious and socially inclusive. The GFCM remains fully committed to contributing to the implementation of the UNGA resolutions on deep-sea fisheries and vulnerable marine ecosystems, and our experience demonstrates that proactive regional cooperation can deliver tangible benefits for fish stocks, ecosystems, and communities alike. And with this, I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to share the GFCM experience, and I'm very sad not to be able to participate in the discussions that will follow. Thank you very much.

I thank you, Elisabetta, Madame Betula-Morello, on behalf of the GFCM. And let's just say that we are happy to have you firstly presenting and secondly being online for us in case there are any questions to you. But now that we have We have heard 3 presentations already. Before turning to our remaining panelists, I would like to open the floor for any questions or statements relating to the first 3 presentations. Are there any delegations that wish to take the floor at this stage? Yeah, I share the fatigue. You know, it's, it's been a somewhat long day already, and for myself, for instance, this is jet lag day, having traveled yesterday. Um, and it's fine if we don't have statements or questions just yet, because in that case I think we could just go on and hear from our remaining 2 panelists and then take the discussion with everybody. Now, um, um, I will go on to give the floor to our 4th panelist, Mr. Marco Milardi. You have the floor.

Thanks, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, everyone. I'm only 8 years jet-lagged, so you'll pardon me. I'm gonna present today on a bit different basis than the others Yes, I wish as a scientist that I would have gone into the details of all the science we do at SIOFA, but I tried to have something a bit higher level. And I still try to combine it with some science and real images. For example, in here there are like some photos of corals that we have taken just last year directly in the SIOFA area. But first of all, I I want to show you a map that you've already seen once today and point to the SIOFA, which is the pea-colored lower right corner area in the southern Indian Ocean. You might not be very familiar with it just yet, but you will hear a lot of it during my presentation. These are— this is our convention area, and all those little areas there that are in purple are our protected areas, and these were just augmented, uh, doubled, more than doubled in number and of course in surface area as well over the last year. So COFI is making quite a lot of progress and in a fast fashion. We are not definitely trailblazing, we are actually catching up. Um, our membership comprises 10 contracting parties and 1 participating fishing entity. We also have 2 cooperating non-contracting parties, and collectively these are called the CCPs of CIOPA. Our mandate— I want to be quite specific about this because it's a matter of discussion— does exclude explicitly all the migratory species and the sedentary species. And why this is important is because also we do have an area that is an extended continental shelf within the CIOPA Convention area. So we have to be quite careful in what we are managing and what we are not managing. Like many RFMOs, we do have 2 main objectives. Of course, the conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources themselves. One other part that a lot of people tend to forget, we do have a mandate as well to promote the sustainable development of fisheries. So to have this mission and fulfill it, we have come a long way with our conservation and management measures, and I'm going to try to show you that they do have a strong scientific basis. In 2022, when I started my work at at SIOFA, I was the first science officer, and we boosted the work of the scientific committee, which is the main engine of work within SIOFA, with a number of initiatives. And many of these require hands-on science, and the photo there, which comes from the Nansen cruise that we had in 2025, is like a prime example of how we do it. This was a larger exercise that involved the UN-flagged vessel Nansen and through the FAO with a large programme of capacity building, collective research that is hopefully going to boost everything in the next few years. Our basis, of course, comes from the data collection. We actually annually nowadays revise our CMM02, which is collecting observer data, catch-by-catch and discards, but also catch data, haul-by-haul. It has progressed in 2018, 2019. We transitioned to haul-by-haul data, and we are actually collecting quite very defined data, especially on deepwater sharks, more than many other RFMOs. We have introduced just a couple of years ago, a VMS data collection CMM. And I am quite happy to report that our annual meeting, which was only last week and which I flew directly from, has actually endorsed the first— for the first time, the VMS program after a pilot phase. So, it's going to come into force very soon, certainly before the end of the year. Again, we're catching up very fast to the other RFMOs. We do have quite a number of works on the VME habitat suitability maps, and of course this work has been correct— currently a bit sidetracked. We have good habitat suitability maps, but like many RFMOs, we are lacking the data that is like underlying these habitat suitability maps. So the non- cruise last year was definitely one of those efforts that boosted our capability of working further on BME in the future, and we have collected a number of images and samples that we are hoping to analyze and translate into science advice within the next few years. On the front of genetics, we have actually worked on genetic structure of some of the stocks, including the one-off toothfish. The last work, which happened only a couple of years ago, supported a transboundary assessment with Kemmler and the EEZ of several states. Obviously, that's great information, but it also poses great challenges to us. And of course, I mentioned that before in my presentation, the Nansen cruise was a great chance to get fishery-independent data and also, of course, to get capacity building among scientists. But not only— it boosted an ongoing discussion on research cruises, CMM, which were tabled at the last meeting but unfortunately did not go forward yet. We still don't have a coherent framework to having fishery-independent research cruises, but we are still collecting data and there are still research cruises occurring.

Thank you.

in the COFA area. We do have a series of binding measures to prevent SAIs, and I will start with the latest developments, but I try to put them in context of the previous ones. Our own CMM 17 is finally establishing exploratory fisheries framework. Where we have requirements to have an assessment of prior impact and of course to have a limited effort and duration of these exploratory fisheries. But this is only possible in the context of a fishing footprint that I developed and the MOP adopted in 2023. And it's also possible in the light of those protected areas that are shown in one of the first slides, which funnily enough for this context, they were proposed first and foremost by the industry. They were voluntary closures that were— because the industry was much more active than the RFMO before its establishment, and then like they turned out into a common closure to everyone. And even the extension was actually pushed by the industry, so quite a good story. Our CMM 18 has been established only last year, and this is the CMM that now picked up the CMM 01 originally on bottom fishing and expanded the protection to what we call benthic fishery closures. And we do prohibit, of course, fishing in all these additional ecologically sensitive zones which were established with a framework at least for establishing these areas, which I understand is quite novel even among RFMOs. Just an example here of what we mean with preventing the significant adverse impacts. We do have a process for authorizing, of course, exploratory fisheries, but also like ongoing fisheries Through the bottom fishing impact assessment. Many times people think that this is just an exercise of tick-bocking— tick-box— Box-ticking exercise. Whereas of course CIOPA takes it quite seriously. Last year we had a proposal for Mauritian fisheries and the scientific committee refused to endorse it. There was a clear application here of the precautionary principle in that case. In terms of bycatch mitigation, we have made quite a lot of progress, especially as you can see from the image on the boat of sharks. The boat of sharks are still like— there's a room for improvement in CIOPA. There are still fisheries, capture fisheries that are taking large amounts of sharks as bycatch. But the CMM relative to sharks has been revised almost annually since 2022. It starts to reflect best practices. We had a number of projects that assessed different mitigation options for these fisheries, and, uh, of course, improved impact assessment and environmental impact assessment in general on the species of sharks. We have made some progress, but definitely a little bit of catching up still to do there on the seabirds bycatch. These are not the number one problematic bycatch species in SIOFA, but we do have a large pelagic longline fishery for oilfish, and that is still like partly less regulated than it probably should be. We are trying align our practices with those of the 2 other FMOs that are present in the same zone. We periodically revise the MCS CMMs as well, having more strong at-sea and port enforcement. Now there's inspection at sea and, of course, port inspections. And I mentioned earlier the VMS enforcement that is going to come in effect this year. All of that is actually trying to ensure that all the measures that we set are actually respected. The compliance committee this year was extremely easy because there were very, very little compliance issues. I don't know if you want to show that as a matter of, like, we are so good and we abide to all the CMMs, or that we are not able to find them out. But at the same time, I think we are making a lot of progress in CMMs related to compliance, and we are showing that there is a greater endorsement of these measures at the national level, which then produce a better compliance on all sorts of things. Um, an area where we are making some progress, but we definitely have less complex models and framework, as Dr. Kensington was showing earlier this morning, is the climate change part. We only introduced the climate change as a standing agenda item in 2024, a bit late. That's for both the Scientific Committee and the MOP, our commission. And the first SIOFA-funded climate impact study was just completed. I signed off on that report less than a week ago, but it was already presented to the Scientific Committee preliminarily and was very well received by both the Scientific Committee and the MOP. It was trying to address vulnerability of key species and habitats and produce at least awareness to prepare at least to include this climate management into the precautionary framework, which is another major strand of work that CIOPA is trying to put into place. Harvest strategies and precautionary framework were the core items addressed since 2024. The work is still ongoing and we definitely have a long way to catch up with our colleagues in NAFO. We do have as well something related to the support to states and the regional corporations. We are active participants in the FAO Deep Sea Fisheries Project, which also supported my trip here, so I am quite happy to hear the name of this project banded around several times during the presentations today. And we have participated participated as well in the last symposium that was organized by NAFO and FAO in Rome last year. We have made a number of initiatives for capacity building, and finally we are getting this on the way. We made some workshops for observers and data managers, the Nansen cruise that I just mentioned, and a number of work was a number of different projects and priorities were endorsed just last week at the last MOP meeting of CEOPA. Finally, we have made significant data infrastructure developments. So, we have established our VMS system in-house, and we are working on the electronic monitoring in general. There's a few proposals on the table without a timeline for completion. so far, but they should give those improved tools for compliance, especially in the smaller-scale fisheries than you would expect in high seas. We do have regular data submissions through FAO, and we are trying to adhere to all the different data-sharing mechanisms to be more and more transparent.

Thank you.

And transparency has been like one of the thorns on the side of SIOFA. We have still like a number of the documents are restricted, but we are making more and more of them since my tenancy there available publicly. We also are doing that in a timely manner. All the reports, for example, that were endorsed last week by the MOP are already available online. We do have a bit of restrictions in what can or cannot be made publicly accessible because we have a specific CMM on data confidentiality. But in respect of that, we are making a lot of efforts in trying to be more transparent. We do have a lot of reviews by members and the stakeholders. which are very active in our scientific community. And we are trying to get a dialogue and learning from other organizations as well on how to further improve on that part. Last week, we had a longer discussion on our document policy, and I have to say, finally, after 3 years, it was adopted by the MOP. Just to conclude, my presentation here and send you home with a couple of takeaway points. We have made several binding actions to protect BMEs and ensure the sustainability of the deep-sea stocks. We have had some key achievements where we expanded the closures and we established precautionary control of new fisheries. The VMS data and VMS system that I mentioned is another major piece of work that we have done, and we have worked a lot on bycatch mitigation and climate integration, even though we are lagging behind on climate especially. And then this is not like bragging. This whole presentation is just to say as well that while we're catching up fast, we are aware that there is a gap to be filled, and so we remain committed to continually improve on that sector. Thank you very much, and I just wanted to greet you with a nice sunset that you can see in the Indian Ocean, so you can remember my presentation in a nice tone. Thank you.

Thank you, Marco. That was A nice touch towards the end, and I thought it was inspiring to hear about all that progress being made within CLFA. So thank you very much for sharing that with us, um, and, and for coming here directly from the annual meeting. Did it take place in the Union?

Seashells. It's not too bad.

All right, all right, not too bad indeed. So I would now like to give the floor to our 5th panelist, Gabrielle Carmine from Georgetown University. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm Dr. Gabrielle Carmine. I'm a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown, and I was invited to give the academic perspective of RFMO management and progress on VMEs and long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks. I can't fully promise that there won't be a quiz, but I think it'll be all right. As an academic, it's hard to break that habit. But for me, I am an interdisciplinary marine scientist, so I think about marine sustainability science and disentangling the modern understanding of the right to fish the high seas through things like beneficial ownership of the high seas fishing industry, as well as a governance assessment of many RFMOs. But first, I I think I just want to sort of zoom out and say that my goal here is not to undermine any of the measures that have been taken by any of the RFMOs that we heard from today, but more to zoom out and think about the mechanisms and frameworks that underpin these systems that have led to the continuation of these meetings for so many years and decades and sort of move into the forest as many academics do. That being said, so we conducted an evaluation of global fisheries management organizations on the high seas. It was fully independent and peer-reviewed and released in November. Environmental Research Letters. I will be— about the independence, you know, this was a fully independent academic review, which is separate and distinct from an official RFMO performance review. And to add, I believe that they both hold value, as both can be important to sort of understanding how these mechanisms and these institutions work. So we included— I'll be talking about one component of this analysis, and that was 100 qualitative questions for institutional performance that were evenly distributed across 10 categories using publicly available data only for 16 RFMOs from their websites. And it was a very thorough peer review process, which is makes it a more rigorous study. But it also is a limitation, right? Because the longer a peer review process is, the further we have from when the CMMs were enacted. But when you're thinking about the mechanisms and bigger picture, it can still be very relevant. The other limitation I'd like to highlight is based on when we first started this study, we did not include NPFC. This figure here is adapted from the first figure of the paper to be more relevant to the topic today. And you'll see the RFMOs I'm referring to are in blue. And they— this is the average score for the— across the 10 categories. So, we had the set catch targets, Transparency, IUU prevention, flag state measures, bycatch prevention measures, the incorporation of scientific knowledge, compliance and enforcement, spatial management with an emphasis on closures, ABMTs and MPAs, and access and equity, as well as stakeholder involvement. So you can see some trends are beginning to show from this figure. But for the purpose of time— there you go. The overall trends of this study that we found were a higher level of performance with the assessment measures looking at the sustainable use aspect of RFMOs as opposed to the long-term conservation of stocks. Um, and the— our analysis was consistent with, uh, the literature, so which it can be, uh, was more affirming of previous performance reviews and trends and our correlations. So we found a lot of consistency with, uh, the papers published in the last decade and a half. And there was also consistency with the last academic, fully independent RFMO review of all RFMOs in 2010, led by Surika Kallis-Suzuki. And I mention her by name for a specific reason. While, you know, controversial, and we did find some consistencies, she also came to the UN in 2010, right after they published that piece, and these previous studies have been presented in adjacent UN Headquarters meetings. This one, hers was at the Resumed Review Conference, and we were sort of updating, and we were expanding on this study itself. So it's a photo of her from 2010 presenting that same work, and she wrote a blog post about it, and in that she said almost all the questions were criticisms, and they ignored the big picture. And I think I left that quote in because the goal, I think, should be that, you know, that was published in 2010, we published ours in 2025, is that in 15 years, so in 2040, there isn't an academic here at headquarters saying the findings of the same study hoping for a— hoping to address the big picture. So in light of that, I think it's important to consider ways to break this cycle that can be, you know, frustrating for many in this room. So the academic critique in why we keep ending up here to sort of solve these large problems. So we can only solve what we understand. So the way I've defined it is the cycle begins with an academic critique of long-term conservation of arfomozen bottom fisheries. And then as a result, there are conservation management expectations that are reaffirmed by institutions like the UNGA. There is a struggle to meet these long-term conservation expectations given all the different stakeholders. So what ends up being met is specific measures that can be met, um, and that leads to a further delay of addressing these long-term conservation concerns for bottom fisheries, which then leads to significant adverse impacts to vulnerable marine ecosystems accumulating over time, over decades. And then we get back to the academic critique. And I think there should be— I think we should start from a place where— and decisions should start from a place where we're acting on the knowledge that we're dealing with problems that have scaled impacts. So, the first scale is spatial, right? There is a spatial scale problem. Focusing in the— focusing on smaller segments of the high seas can be a detriment to the governance of the impacts of bottom fishing. When you look at this high seas seamount diagram, right, it's not just the seamount itself, it's not just the cold water corals, it's has a lot of vertical connectivity for vertical migrating species, pelagic predators, upwellings.

It's—

these seamounts are even connected to seabird aggregations. So there is this importance of a spatial scale, right? Not just the specific areas of where this VME indicator species are found, This is a larger spatial question. And then as well, the temporal scale issue. So as we heard from— for those who went to the lunch meeting with Dr. Amy Taylor-Bocko and Savannah Goode, the cost of errors in judgment for deep-sea VME species is extremely high. nearly geologic in scale for some species, with some corals, you know, being thousands of years old. And there is value in starting the recovery of areas that have been trawled.

Next.

Oh, and also the image on the left is a picture of a coral reef that was trawled in 2007. By— is by Professor Dr. Oster, who we have here today, from a 2017 paper. But I'd also like to get to the idea that the governance mechanisms are reactionary in nature and by definition. So reacting to findings of indicator species is a post hoc reactionary management. And given the speed that governance occurs, this cycle creates something that scholars call a responsiveness gap. So meaning there is a gap in the expectations that have been hoped for or set by different political institutions and then the actual speed of the response. So that responsiveness gap is a latency and is important to address, especially in a time of climate change and biodiversity loss. With transboundary fish stocks potentially shifting, the responsiveness gap is only going to be more important to address because it could lead to other potential conflicts, and the speed at which they're addressed is important. I do believe that there's an opportunity for states to address these systemic issues in all avenues that they participate— or that you participate in, whether it's at RFMOs, whether it's in the General Assembly, whether it is, dare I say, at BBNJ, and think about these sort of next steps to protect VMEs from bottom fishing. And hopefully in 2040, an academic is in here to give their perspective.

But we'll—

yes. So thank you so much for the invitation, and I look forward to questions.

Hi.

Thank you very much, Gabrielle. And the academics are very, very, very welcome in this forum and a necessary part of this discussion, let me assure you. Now, we have reached the end of the panel presentations. I thank the 5 panelists for their interesting presentations. The floor is now open for questions and comments, discussion. So if you have anything you would like to contribute— and we do, yes. It's a shame, actually. I was hoping to ask some questions myself. We'll see if I get the time for that. And we have first up on my— 726, the NGO Oceans North. You have the floor, please.

Waiting. Hi, hi, hi. Thank you, panelists, and thank you to everyone for noting progress and gaps in the RFMO implementation of the relevant UNGA resolutions. And thank you to Gabby especially for highlighting the climate change piece that you brought up, and others as well on the climate change side. I wanted to bring up that Oceans North, the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, and other expert scientists conducted a review of over 217 deep-sea RFMO documents to evaluate the UNGA commitments to take into account climate change in taking measures to manage deep-sea fisheries and protect VMEs. We concluded that despite an increase in non-binding initiatives, there have been no binding measures to address these commitments. Efforts to identify knowledge gaps related to climate change impacts remain largely preliminary and have rarely translated into concrete management measures. And I have that policy brief here if anyone's interested. We welcome the presentation earlier by Dr. Kenshington on progress at identifying climate refugia for VMEs, like black and bubblegum corals, in NAFO, but note that this work will still need to be translated into management action. We conclude that RFMOs must urgently identify areas where VMEs are likely to be most exposed to climate change impacts, such as climate refugia, and use this information to update their impact assessments and bottom fishing activities. We would like to ask the panelists, what are the barriers to progress and how can we close the gap to improve RFMO considerations of climate change across bottom fisheries and vulnerable marine ecosystems? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Would anybody like to respond? Yes, Brindis, you have the floor.

This is really tricky. If we— if it wasn't tricky, it would have been done. That's basically the answer, because climate change really affects the whole ecosystem. In particularly what way, the scientists have not really sort of told the managers. We have Ellen, of course, on the forefront here with really groundbreaking research on climate change, refugia, connectivity, and everything. And I've listened to this 3 times. I'm just starting to understand it. We are, of course, hoping enough that this can translate into some kind of advice on the sort of review of VMEs in the next years, maybe like some now, some later. There's been extensive discussion with in the NAFOSC on how to translate climate change and ecosystem change variables into stock assessment, how that could possibly inform some of these stock models. There have been attempts to take all kinds of variables into that. Some of that has probably already had some influence, but you need to understand that managers in the RFMOs, they react to— they ask the scientists for advice, and there needs to be a line from forefront science into making it workable. I think we're still a bit in the— this is very new, how we're going to take this into consideration is still being sort of— it's in a flux. It's important, I think all of the RFMOs have been talking about this, But I hope we, in the next years, get some more concrete ways to do this. But thank you for the question, it's important.

Thank you, Prime Minister, for the NATO perspective, and Dariusz, on behalf of NEF.

Yeah, well, I think there's lots of— most RFMOs have non-binding resolutions on climate change because it's very difficult to know exactly what to do. Part of the reason is the timescales that a lot of the modelling that we get are 20, 30, 40 years, and we normally make our decisions on annual or few-year processes. For VMEs, in a way, I guess it's— we don't have that issue. We don't have the issue of making decisions on that annual thing necessarily, and we don't also have— But political difficulties that we do have with allocation when stocks move, but ultimately we rely on ICES, and I— Simon might need to react if he's— he's buried in email, I suspect, but Simon might need to react from the ICES perspective. But basically we wait for ICES advice to say something different to us that we need to change. But remember that we're only fishing in 2% of our— bottom fishing in only 2% of our area, so there might be implications for those areas, but I mean, I would have thought the main implications are about the existing VME and how we protect those against climate change, and I don't think we've got the measures to do that, so I think it's quite interesting discussion. I mean, I think there are possibly different issues for NAFO, but the only other thing to say is that the RFMOs are busy contacting each other, working together, So if one of them does make progress on something, we all rapidly learn from them. But I think it's— as Brynhildr said, it's a very, very difficult area to actually know what concrete steps to do on this, unless Simon has any great advice from ICES. If ICES tells us to do something different, we may well do it.

A lot of power you have, Simon and colleagues, at the ICES. And thank you everybody for the honesty in these discussions. I really appreciate that. I have a 6-people speakers list in front of me, and as far as I know based on the numbers, this is Japan, Haiti, Iceland, Greenpeace, ICFA, and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, and we will start with Japan.

Thank you.

Japan, on mic number 638. You have the floor.

Thank you, Coordinator, and thank you to all panelists for the very interesting presentation. Now, it's 6 AM in Tokyo, so it's very tough for me, but I'll try to do my best. As a response to the relevant paragraph of the UN resolutions. RFMOs clearly, as we can see, have strengthened their management framework, and Japan, as a member of the RFMOs, supports and has contributed to the work. And as a member of the NPFC, I now— I would like to introduce some of the measures which NPFC has introduced. The first one is the effort control. Limits of the number of fishing vessels and the seasonal fishing closure have been introduced. Currently, one trawler and one gillnetter are operating in the Emperor Seaman's area in the Northern Pacific managed by the NPUC. There used to be almost 10 fishing vessels, but now it's just 2, so the effort has been decreasing. But it doesn't mean this fishery is important. This is an important fishery. Then second one is prohibition of the fishing ground expansion. Fishing activity is limited to the seamounts located south of 45 degrees north latitude and not allowed to conduct fishing operation in areas deeper than 1,500 meters. Through the measures, NPSC has introduced measures to limit bottom fishing operation operating area. And fishing vessels' positions are always checked through the VMS. In addition, 100% observer coverage allows us monitor not only fishing activities but also the bycatch including VME. The part of the seamounts have been closed since NPFC has recognized and identified, confirmed the existence of the BME. So, and NPFC has continued to research and collect information and data, and once NPFC has confirmed the existence of the BMEs, they have introduced the closure on that area to protect the PMEs. The NPOC Scientific Committee has been conducting a stock assessment for our main target species, namely the North Pacific armorhead and the splendid albacore. But as we discussed this morning, the stock assessment results are not— the stock assessment for that kind of species are difficult. So at this moment, NPSG has introduced the catch limit, but it's for the no-specific armorhead, but it's not based on the science. But as a precautionary approach, NPSG has introduced the catch limit for the no-specific armorhead. Then due to the— as I mentioned, this we discussed this morning, due to the unique biological characteristics, stock assessment of bottomfish is difficult in many cases. So NPFC has introduced not only the catch limit but also some other measures like limitation of the gear classification configuration. So this is a very short summary what NPFC has done. So far, so this is just information because there is no NPT Secretariat on the podium. So, this is just for information for everybody. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Japan. And I commend you for being here when it's 6 AM your time and still making sense. So, that's much appreciated. Are there any reactions to this from the panellists? Yes, please go ahead, Gabrielle.

I guess mine is quick, just on the point of the stock assessments being difficult. I think the response that would make the most sense to me would be that if stock assessments are difficult, that shouldn't mean a business-as-usual approach, but rather, I mean, with The paragraph 120, that would mean that if you or it would struggle to under. I struggle to find the connection that that would authorize bottom fishing activities without appropriate stock assessments and precautionary approach for bottom fishing. I think a more. strict approach to bottom fishing or bottom trawling would be a better application of the precautionary approach. But I'm sure— I think I see Mattiani's light as well. I'm sure he could school on the appropriate paragraphs.

Thank you, Gabrielle. And Marco has requested the floor. You will notice, everybody, that I'm using first names, and that's because I'm used to being on a first-name basis where I come from, and I hope it's okay with everybody, you know, since we are aiming for an informal discussion among friends and colleagues. Marko, on behalf of CIOPA, please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks. I wanted to comment on that part because CIOPA is also fishing for Alfonsino, and I just wanted to say, of course, there are many other indicators that can be used. You know, we don't have get a formal stock assessment, you know, CPU indexes and many other tools that we have at our disposal. And even like keeping catches as they are is, uh, you know, a precautionary tool for action, especially if you have indications saying that they are being harvested sustainably. Of course, when the indicators say that you're not fishing at a sustainable level, I would agree with you, but we do have other means to, you know, before a formal stock assessment with different— and there's different degrees of stock assessment as well. So we are boosting that work. CIOFA is following, of course, the low-information stock assessment in the DSF project, but we're also having a stock assessment for Alfonsino. There's also some other work that you can do.

For example?

on ageing and stock structure. And then ultimately, I think these are all like legitimate actions that are precautionary in nature and that actually respond to the criteria without necessarily saying that we have to stop fishing before we have all the full picture with the full integrated stock assessment.

Thank you so much, Marco. And I see Japan has their light on again. Is this to respond to— yeah. If it's okay with Iceland, I would take Japan in response to the ongoing discussion. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you. I'm sorry to take the floor again, and thank you very much for the reaction to my information, to my information. Actually, the secretariat from the CIOFA explained very much, very well, and this is exactly what I want to say. And we already, we have introduced some measures even though there is no stock assessment. There are some, there is a kind of possible argument if there is no scientific advice from the scientific committee we have to wait the advice from the scientific committee, but we are taking the action without waiting the advice from the scientific committee. This is a precaution. And we— not there is a measure, but there are some voluntary measures, like there is no targeting the species until we confirm the status of the stock, something like that. So we have taken the action as a precautionary approach. But thank you very much for the explanation from the Secretary of State. That's very much, much better than my explanation. So, thank you very much.

Yes, just to respond. No, I recognize, you know, CPUE, there are these metrics that are helpful. But I think in particular in the Anthropocene ocean, Right, where we have climate change, we have biodiversity loss. These stricter assessments, a better understanding, a more consistent or up-to-date assessment might be needed as the impacts of climate change start impacting where these fish are going and also overall biodiversity loss from other large ocean-wide occurrences. So I wasn't saying that the stock assessments are the only— I think the Anthropocene is sort of creating a management creep, so to speak, that other scholars have noted.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, everyone, for an interesting exchange. And next up, I have Iceland on my list, followed by Spain.

Thank you.

Iceland, you have the floor on mic 699.

Thank you. First of all, thank you very much both to the moderator and to everyone who has made presentations. These have been very interesting and I think it's very appropriate that we give good space and a lot of emphasis to regional bodies in this context. RFMOs are absolutely the most important basis for high seas fisheries management, so they are basically the types of body that we are relying on in this context. I think it's also worthwhile noting that it, you know, it's a small world. We have basically, when we talk about organizations that have legal competence to set measures for high seas fishing, we're talking about 13 organizations in the whole world. Of those, 5 are tuna RFMOs, which are not really that relevant when it comes to at least bottom fishing. So that leaves us with 8 organizations which are pretty much the key to what we're talking about here. And I think it's interesting to see that we have actually a good representation of these 8 here today giving us presentations, but it's also crucial to note that we have a lot of measures already being adopted by these organizations, and I think that's what is very useful for us to reconfirm here. That obviously includes area-based measures aimed at preventing significant adverse impacts on VMEs, and we have such vast closure, both direct closures, but I think it's also important to highlight the, what you could call, more indirect closures, or where you have not formally closed an area but you're not— flag states are not authorized to have their vessels conduct bottom fishing Unless they go through some sort of an environmental impact assessment or exploratory fishing or whatever, these areas are not regularly open to bottom fishing. And I think that's something that's extremely important to stress— how limited the areas in the high seas are where bottom fishing is authorized. I think some of the discussions here you would draw the conclusion that this is a very widespread activity, but when you look at the map, for example, if you go to the FAO VME database, you will see that this is actually very, very limited. And the reason it's very limited is that these organizations that have this legal mandate have adopted the measures which cause the limitations. Um, also in this context, I think it is worth noting that And although the RFMOs don't cover the whole high seas, it's really only one area where you have bottom fishing taking place outside the controlling areas of RFMOs. And it's basically, as most of you will be aware of, disputes that are not related to fisheries that prevent the establishment of an RFMO in that area in the southwest Atlantic. And even then, as everyone who will have— as I'm sure all of you have read carefully the written submissions to this meeting— seen that flag states have adopted measures even relating to that area. So even when we talk about areas outside the RFMO regime, you have flag states taking on responsibility, which is very important. I think it's also important to stress again that we are not only talking about the vulnerable marine ecosystems on the seabed, we're also talking about the deep-sea fish stocks themselves. And there I'm happy to note also that the RFMOs largely have taken measures, which includes doing scientific work on data-limited situations. And unfortunately, we find ourselves in a situation where for a lot of the deep-sea species, that is an essential element. And I'm happy to note that that is something that is being addressed. I'm sort of torn between whether I should go into it, but I think I'll slightly touch upon it. It hasn't really been mentioned, and I think it can very easily go into a very in-depth technical discussion which probably is not useful here, but I think nevertheless we should mention the effort that the RFMOs have put into enforcement and monitoring, control, and surveillance. I'm sort of tempted to ask the NEF Secretary to explain the new ERS system, but again, I think that would probably go in too much detail and too big technicalities, but that again is essential. It's not that these organizations are simply adopting rules and hoping for the best. The enforcement regime is very extensive and is something that they have built up very carefully, very methodically, and have placed a lot of emphasis on. Perhaps I misunderstood a bit, but I think when it was mentioned that the RFMOs are generally working on the basis of sort of reactionary management, that they're reacting to situations, To some extent that's obviously true, that by and large any management is reacting to situations, but I think in that context it's very important to note the precautionary nature of a lot of the measures that have been set. So you have a lot of closures, you have a lot of areas where you require big steps to— in order to have the possibility of authorising bottom fishing, which have been set purely on a precautionary basis. Without any concrete, you know, scientific certainty of there being VMEs that are being protected, etc. But again, on a precautionary basis, they are closed. So rather than reacting to new scientific evidence by making closures or taking measures, quite the opposite tends to be true, that there is very great limitations on entry of bottom fishing into any anything outside existing bottom fishing areas. So I think we should not overstate how we are reacting to new measures— I mean, new information and setting measures on the basis of that. We've already established a lot of precautionary measures which I think break that sort of cycle that was referred to. Again, I may have misunderstood what was being referred to, but based on my understanding, understanding of what sort of reaction we're talking about in that context. I think we should— sort of as a final point from me, just— I think it's important that we highlight and that we welcome the extensive work that has been taken by the RFMOs, but also acknowledge that they are still working on this. I would be very surprised if any of the RFMOs would claim to be in any way perfect. They are still very much developing how they are approaching all these issues. They are hopefully constantly improving. So again, in 10 years' time, hopefully they will be even better at what they're doing. They certainly are now much better than they were 20 years ago, that's for sure. But I think this underlines also the point that I made in my previous intervention under the last agenda item, which is basically how the overall approach in the UNGA resolution when it comes to these issues, how that has really stood the test of time. The need to identify where we have the VMEs, the need to prevent there being significant adverse impacts on them, etc. As new knowledge is gathered, we fill more out into the overall picture, but that general approach very much still stands as a good approach, and I think the vast amount of measures that have been adopted by RFMOs are largely in line with that general approach, and their continued development, I'm sure, will continue to be that as well. So I think one thing we definitely should take away from the development over the past 20 years and going into the future is how good that has proved to be, and that's something we should continue to base our work on. So thank you to the RFMOs, and thank you to everyone else who has taken part in this discussion.

Well, thank you, Iceland, for your intervention, and including for bringing up enforcement. as a vital part of management efforts. I don't know how much detail our panelists are going to want to go into, if they feel tempted. Just, you'll be welcome to respond, maybe slightly briefly, aware of the time limits we have, and more people wanting to take the floor. But Dario, as I see, you would like to respond indeed.

Yeah, not to go into huge detail on our electronic reporting system, but just to add a few things. Yeah, on that point about reactionary or not reactionary, I mean, I would say, yeah, I mean, the UNGA resolutions— I've got Duaalas here, so I understand to be non-binding— but look how much the fisheries organisations, regional organisations then went immediately— well, some of us even preempted UNGA resolution and implemented measures, and that does mean that we are enforcing our closed areas, we are enforcing these measures. If anybody strays, they do get caught out and we do report it to our parties and they do take action. So I'm actually really proud of a system that has been put in place by the RFMOs. And on the reaction part, I think maybe you were sort of referring then to the sort of encounter protocols, but again, that's that's an area that we understood, for instance, not to have VMEs, and then if there's an encounter and you get a closure, it means that that little bit that's been damaged, yes, will be damaged, but that's the track of that trawl, but then the whole— a large area is closed by the RFMO immediately. So that to me, okay, in that case it's effectively reactionary, but it is again, as best as you can do in a management context. So I think it's a sensible approach. And I think part also, when we're— it's interesting looking at this workshop as compared to the last one. I sort of feel like the discussion, at least with the NGOs, has moved on to another stage and now wants fisheries organisations to react to that new agenda, you know, so— and BBNJ probably has changed things. So Probably things will move on for us as RFMOs, but I think in terms of looking back on the UNGA Resolution, I'm pleased with what we've done. And then just very briefly on the enforcement side, just to say, yeah, again, that side has been evolving a lot for us and for other RFMOs, where now we have a screen where we can see every vessel, we can see what they've caught haul by haul, and that data is shared and that screen is shared with all our parties so they can direct their enforcement officers who are at sea or at port to deal with that issue. So I think everything has evolved so much in the last 20 years, and I think we can be quite proud of that, even though we know there's lots of challenges as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that, Dariusz. And just to mention it, I think Iceland mentioned, you know, that there is a— well, not too large, but there's a number of RFMOs, and we have heard from some of them. There are others that would have been really nice to hear from, too, but I would just mention those in case there are state representatives in the room that would like to share any insights with us that are members of those RFMOs. We have CCAMLR, for instance, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. That's been mentioned actually previously. We have the NPFC, the North Pacific Fisheries Commission. We have SEAFO, the Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization. And then SPRIFMO, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization. So Just to throw it out there, anybody welcome to participate in the discussion. I have, for the time being, 4 on my list of speakers, and I will need to stick to UN protocol of taking the member states first, which means I'm taking— did you want to?

No.

If it's all right,

Yes, yes.

Before I give the floor to Spain, Gabrielle, you would like to respond? Please go ahead.

Yes, thank you. I think it— I'll be very brief. I think to the point of the reactionary management, I think it was highlighted with Dr. Baca's work that one— I think she found one trawl per decade removes 60 to 90% of corals and sponges. So, the importance of the— and I would consider her work as part of that best available science.

Marko, please go ahead.

Sorry, I won't be very long, but I think our work cannot be but reactionary in some sort of sense. It would be very nice to have mapping of all the VMEs before we have to do any management, but that is unrealistic. The resources necessary for any kind of mapping in that area are just beyond what we currently have even available, even if we redirected all the resources. And while there might be creative ways to fill that gap, I think the reality of things is that we can't be managing things with perfect knowledge, or even an imperfect one, NAFO being the exception, because you guys have the best one. Most of the times, we are to work with the tools that we have, and the tools that we have are not necessarily, you know, blunt and ineffective. They are actually quite effective for the amount of information that we have. But my point here is that many RFMOs have taken action proportionate with the knowledge that they had, and they have advanced relatively quickly. Coming from one of the young RFMOs— CEVA was established only in 2012 and started working in 2016— I can say that in our case, at least, lack of data was not one of our problems for advancing. We have borrowed from other RFMOs' experience where available, and we have, like, set limits like everyone else. In a way, I think that the work that we have done has actually shown in practical ways that there can be management in absence of perfect the information, and that management can then be adapted in the future when that information becomes available. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Marco. And now I give the floor to our colleague from— no, I'm so sorry, before I give the floor to the colleague from Spain, we have Brynhildur from NAFO wanted to respond. You have the floor.

Very short. I think NAFO is— yes, we have a lot of of information. We're a luxury RFMO, basically. But before we had all that information, we did close the seamount— most of the seamounts in 2007, and that was absolutely not on basis of perfect information. So there's a mixture of all kinds of things going on out there. Some of them are done without perfect information. Some of them are done with perfect information. I think that's a good point. done with perfect information, as like these small, very distinct area in NAFO close to certain kind of corals. But it's a mixed bag. So it's not all reactionary, it's not all precautionary, it's just what is done at the moment, and it's a mix of everything. Thank you.

Thank you, Brunhildur. And with that, I give the floor to our colleague from Spain. Mic 643, please.

Muchísimas gracias, señora moderadora.

Thank you very much, Madam Moderator. I simply want to Thank you. I would like to briefly offer some reflections. Maybe because of the time change, of the time difference, maybe it was a mirage, but I was very different— I was very interested in hearing the experiences of the various fisheries organizations, and I saw some interesting convergences. In particular, I want to emphasize what I thought most important, that is the concrete possibility of establishing some convergence among the data from the fisheries sector. I think that is very important. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that, Spain. Anybody wanting to respond to that immediately? Go ahead.

I think all of the RFMOs are very aware of the need for trying to sort of streamline the data. Excuse me. NAFO and IARC work on giving the catch on entry, catch on exit data. There is current discussion within NAFO whether we should revert to FLUX to more align our member states, which are both members of NIEF and NAFO, with not having them to report in 2 different formats. And I think this dialogue is something that's really starting to take off, because it's both for the RFMOs, it's for sort of wider exchange of data. And it's also for the ease of the fishing industry not to have to do different data when you cross a line between NAFO and NEAF, and maybe for ICAT and NAFO and NEAF to exchange data. So this is very much a topic which is high on the agenda. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Srinidhar. And we actually also have a reaction online, or well, I will be giving the floor to the Secretary to convey the message.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed, Betula Morello from GFCM reacted as follows. Agree with Marco and would also argue that measures such as encounter protocols, for example, could be better framed as adaptive management rather than reactionary management in absence of perfect information.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I see, Ms. Karaman, you are tempted to respond, and you have the floor.

Tempted. If I'm understanding the question— or the question right, it's that it's adaptive and not reactionary. I think based on the timelines of RFMO responses to many of the issues at hand and the timelines themselves between— because of that responsiveness gap that's been demonstrated by— with Brian Pence's work, I think there are some that could be considered adaptive, but on— but generally, it—

I think that's a good point.

the responsiveness gap indicates that it's not necessarily an adaptive management style.

Thank you. And Marko.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks for the comments and the questions. I think it's a very interesting topic. Our view in SIOFA is that, for example, Yes. VME thresholds are a backstop measure. They're a backstop measure in the sense that they work, and they are adaptive in the sense that they work in the context of other measures that have been put in place. They're not the only measure that we have. There are special closures, and when we get those special closures slightly wrong, then that's when the VME thresholds and encounter protocols come into place. So they're part of a larger framework, and that framework is not necessarily reactive in nature, whereas, of course, it might be not well-informed, as we have discussed today as well. In that context, I would say these measures are something that has to be seen in a larger picture. We're now focusing on the 3, and we missing a bit the forest. And the larger picture in general is that the RFMOs have tried to have a lot— like a bigger framework that includes special protection. And outside of that special protection, if they got it wrong, there are like backstop measures. Thanks.

Thank you so much, Marco. And, um, the moderator had been dreaming of buying herself some popularity by letting people go maybe 10 minutes earlier. I am less optimistic about that by now, but that's for all the good reasons, and I thank you all for the excellent conversation going on. I have 4 remaining on the list of speakers right now, and I think I would take the advice from secretariat to group the interventions. So if it's okay with everybody, I would first take the ROK, Korea, and the ICFA, group those together, ask for responses, and after that go to the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and Greenpeace. So with that, and I have somebody else— I'm sorry, appearing on my list, but first, let's go with the Republic of Korea on mic 646. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Moderator. First of all, I would like to thank all the panelists for their very informative presentations. Today's presentations clearly demonstrated how a number of RFMOs are striving to achieve an appropriate balance between the protection of BME and sustainable use of fisheries resources through science-based, science-based reviews and continuous dialogue between scientists and managers. As a responsible fishing state, the Republic of Korea remains fully committed to implementing the, the conservation and management measures adopted by the relevant RFMOs and are— and to contributing to international effort to protect BMEs. In this regard, I would like to briefly introduce one initiative that Korea is preparing. Korea is planning to launch a multi-year research program led by the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, or KIOST, in collaboration with the Climate Ocean Research Institute of Korea and the relevant scientific institutions and academic organizations. The program will focus on biodiversity conservation in the, in the Emperor Seamount chain and the northwestern Hawaiian Luís. As part of this program, scientific surveys are planned for 2027 and 2028 to improve our understanding of the distribution of VMEs, ecological connectivity among seamounts, and the past and present impact of fishing activities, and the potential for significant adverse impact. We hope that the data and scientific findings generated through this research will continue through the appropriate processes to the work of the NPFC Scientific Committee and other relevant discussions and support future impact assessment and development of science-based management measures. Korea will continue to work closely with RFMOs, their members, and scientific institutions and other stakeholders to, to advance the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems and sustainable management of deep-sea fisheries. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Korea, and it's the middle of the night for you too, I believe. Before allowing anybody to respond, I would proceed, and I did mention previously that I need to stick to UN protocol and take states first, which means Australia is now at the top of my list, and, and thank you everyone else on the list for your patience. Australia on mic 630.

Many thanks, and thank you for bearing with me while I messed with your list as well. I will just keep this short, but wanted to reiterate Australia's commitment to the conservation of high seas biodiversity and the sustainability of high seas fisheries, and particularly recognize the critical role that RFMOs play in bringing to life the commitments we've made as states through the UNGA resolutions. And I do really see RFMOs as a key forum for seeking change and implementing strong sustainable fisheries management practices. As per my first intervention, I do recognise significant progress is made, but there's still greater scope for accountability and transparency in implementation. and also for robust monitoring arrangements, including through a range of measures that have already been raised in the presentations. Just responding to the call for updates from other RFMOs not represented in the panel discussion today, I would just like to highlight SPRIFMO's progress, or the South Pacific Regional Fishery Management organisation's progress in updating its bottom fishing conservation and measure in 2023. Notably, the agreement to a minimum 70% protection threshold for VME indicator taxa to prevent significant adverse impacts from the potential impacts of bottom trawling. But however, SPRIFMO has not been able to give effect to this protection threshold at the 2024-2025 and 2026 Commission meetings, and Australia recalls the need to effectively implement current measures and continue to make progress towards the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks. I share this to reflect on the key focus of these forums to be about bringing the UNGA resolutions to life, and that there is still work to be done on achieving implementation. in addition to looking at those additional scope points of interest as well.

Thank you very much, Australia, for accepting my challenge from before. And I will proceed directly to the next state which has asked for the floor. And hang in there, everybody else on the list. We will finish the list hopefully today, but let's see. Next up on mic 673, we have the Philippines. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Moderator. The Philippines appreciates the convening of this important workshop. And thanks to the organizers and experts for advancing our collective understanding on the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems, or VMEs, and deep-sea fish stocks. We would like to provide a general comment with special focus to the presentation provided in segment 1 and 2. Our country has a vital interest in the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity and fisheries resources. While the Philippines is not a bottom fishing nation, we are mainly pelagic fishing nation, and demersal fishing is a highly regulated fisheries in the Philippines. We recognize that the health of deep sea ecosystems is inseparable from the broader resilience of the ocean and the well-being of coastal communities, particularly in developing states. The Philippines is not a member to any high seas deep sea RFMOs. However, we wish to highlight the importance of ecological connectivity between deep sea vulnerable marine ecosystems, continental slopes, seamounts, and adjacent coastal and pelagic ecosystems. Scientific evidence increasingly demonstrates that these ecosystems are not isolated. Consequently, degradation of VMEs in areas beyond national jurisdiction may have ecological consequences that extend into the marine environments upon which adjacent coastal developing states depend for food security, livelihoods, and economic development. We therefore encourage to continue scientific research such like VME mapping as well as regional cooperation to better understand these linkages for effective measures are based on the best available scientific information. While we expand our understanding in this connectivity, Applying the precautionary and ecosystem approaches where scientific uncertainty should remain. The Philippines also thanks the FAO for its presentation. We noted with particular interest the point on potential risk of fishing effort displacement when measures are targeted for spatial closure and effort reduction in regulating Bottom fishing activities. We take cognizance that these fishing efforts may be transferred to areas that are less studied, particularly in or adjacent to developing coastal states where scientific information, governance arrangements, or monitoring capacity may be more limited. Thank you.

Thank you warmly, um, the delegate of Philippines, for sharing your perspectives. And on we go with the list of speakers in front of me. We now have on mic 721, um, the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations.

You have the floor, please.

Thank you.

Thank you. I would like to start with a Chinese proverb which says that the finger that points to the moon is not the moon, and I will leave it there, but I will continue speaking. We speak lightly sometimes of the RFMOs. It's easy to point out what has been achieved and not achieved, but then again, I come from a region that is known in Spain to answer questions with another question, so I will do that, and it's, what is the alternative? What would the situation be had RFMOs not stepped up to their job and tried to do something? The other thing that I don't understand is some criticism of RFMOs do not seem to take into account that RFMOs are not blocs or institutions; they are collective of countries that have to take decisions. And I think in that stance it's very important not to lose that perspective, because that is what will happen with BB&J and that is what happens at the United Nations General Assembly and that is what happens at all the world governance institutions, no matter if it's biodiversity, human rights or anything, and that is what we have. The main reason is that there is no enforcement agency either. This is basically like a collective of neighbours trying to decide how to collect garbage and then you have somebody like me who forgets every night to take out their garbage and then ruins the whole system. And that is the kind of things that you have in RFMOs. You have to take into account that RFMOs have the opt-out system, the objections, and very often you take decisions in a very strong majority, but one says, I will not do so. And that is perfectly okay within the realm of the RFMOs, which mimics the realm of the United Nations, by the way. And that is a problem. You said it yourself, one tow can ruin an area, but if we all agree into closing an area to trawling but only one country decides to continue, and this is a very, very common case in RFMOs, then the collective effort is completely ruined. Now, if you bring that to the BB&J, not only do you have this problem with the members, but you— the signatories and the ratifying countries, but you have a collection of countries who have decided not to sign the treaty. And then you might even create winners, so-called winners, from not collaborating in the larger system because if you decide not to fish in an area and we all leave and then one country says, ah, I decided not to comply, I will fish there, then you will have a problem. The main problem also is we don't see about the consequences of this. There is no penalty for the non-compliers. There is no closure of markets. There is no general punishment. So if you want to talk about why RFMOs don't perform better, if you want to put it like that, like Dr. Camin has been analyzing, I think you need to look much more higher in the mountain and more Not only to the forest but to the whole valley, which might have 2 or 3 forests over there. And I really like your perspective of not looking at the trees and looking at the forest, but the forest is much, much larger. Now, just to finish, if you take it on land, what we are talking about is there has been an agreement basically to say there will be no further clearances in the rainforest of land to produce agriculture. And I say that because— No, no, I'm saying it's a simile. What I'm saying here is that if that was a headline tomorrow, that would be counted as a success. No more clearances in the rainforest to produce agriculture. We always try to close down that and it continues to grow. Well, in fisheries we have frozen the footprint and that is the same thing. And when you look at the amount of For instance, the footprint in the NEAF, which is 2%, it's pretty much very heavy. So we have to look at these successes as well, because if we don't look at the successes, then you are just— we are not promoting success. And I think that is the story of our FMOs. I think they are the only real piece of international governance that is out there, and we are not proclaiming them as a huge success. Which is what we should do, and we should build upon them. We are rather hammering at what we didn't do and so and so. That is the main problem. I could go on for a long time, and people who know me know this is a fact, but I will leave it there. But I just really would like to say that we need to be very open on the succession and we have to be very pragmatic and realistic when we talk about these things, on 2 things: what is really at our hand to implement these agreements, and what do we expect of agreements to come? Because, well, I now will use an English proverb: the grass always looks better on the other side of the valley. And BB&J looks like something very promising, but in January we will only have COP 1, and if I remember, CBD took until COP 25 to reach a full agreement of implementation. So let's focus on success and let's build on that success and let's build on multilateralism that works to create something in the high seas that works for everybody. And I did not even mention other activities. The conflict between the column of water and the continental shelf is going to create a lot of frustration in the next years and believe me, you will not fix that only with fisheries. Because what happens nowadays, and NAFO can talk to that about a lot, is that we close an area to protect it from fisheries and the next day an oil platform appears there. And when you try to talk about that, they tell you 2 things. One, it's none of your business because you can only talk about fisheries. And 2, this is the continental shelf, this is not international waters, this is national jurisdiction. And that is something that will come to this meetings and the other meetings at the BB&J once and over again. So maybe we should focus about those problems that are about to come instead of complaining about, you know, that we only did 6 out of 10 instead of 8 out of 10 or 10 out of 10, while not forgetting that 10 out of 10 is the final objective. Thank you.

Thank you very much, ICFA. 2 people remain on the list of speakers. What I propose to try is, is to hear your interventions or questions one after another, and then if possible, to have 30 seconds to 1 minute closing remarks from our panelists. Call me an optimist, but let's try. I have on mic 725, the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Moderator. I hope I can fulfill your wishes on the brevity, but I do want to respond to a number of points raised in the discussion. It's been a very rich discussion and well worth continuing on through tomorrow. I had a question to Darius about whether the current review— about whether the recurrent review of bottom fisheries— the bottom fisheries regulations in NEAF will incorporate the associated and dependent species provisions of the current UNGA resolutions and others that emerged from the 2022 review? And will ICES be requested to provide advice accordingly? I mean, you're obviously— it's the contracting parties that it's up to them to decide on that, but your expert opinion, as it were, if that's a possibility. And I would note that several contracting parties of NEF are here in the room, are represented in the room. But if I can make a few comments in relation to the Iceland intervention, which I— with Stefan's intervention, which was very good. You know, the FAO stated that about 1/6 of the high seas is presumably at fishable depths, is still open to bottom fishing. Now, we're not clear on the methodology that the FAO They said this at the ICSP meeting in May, but it is a positive development what RFMOs have done. The level of protection—I mean, the—and we agree that this is a major, major improvement over the situation 20 years ago when 61-105 was adopted. I just want to say, though, to continue this line of—in response to Japan's intervention, it just wanted to. mentioned that while Japan has done a lot, particularly in the early years after the adoption of 61-105, to close the— you know, establish a footprint, et cetera, there have been emerging concerns over the last 10 years or so. And just to note that at the annual meeting of the North Pacific Fisheries Commission, 5 contracting parties to the NPFC supported a proposal to temporarily suspend the bottom trawl fisheries on the Emperor Seamount chain, primarily to prevent continued overfishing of the target stocks, as well as concerns over continued impact on VMEs that have not yet been dealt with. And this is in large part, though not exclusively, because impact assessments have not been done consistent with the UNGA resolutions. Initially. And I think Marco mentioned the concerns over the cost of doing some of this, but this is what states committed to do clearly in Article 1— in paragraph 119, excuse me, of 6472, Resolution 6472, and paragraph 120 says adopt and implement these measures or else do not authorize bottom fisheries to proceed. So just wanted to mention that. But in fairness to Japan, this is not only an issue in the NPFC but most other RFMOs as well. And there's a study by DOCI that was presented to the 2022 Bottom Fisheries Workshop on specifically on the impact assessments done by RFMOs and subsequently published in Marine Policy. I just would add, and I'm trying to be brief here, and I see you looking at me here, but Now, a major exception in our view to this work is the work done by the Oceanographic Institute of Spain, which did a very thorough impact assessment in the southwest Indian Atlantic Ocean, an area where there is no RFMO or no RFMO under negotiation. And as a result, most areas below 300 to 400 meters depth along the Patagonian Shelf were closed to bottom fishing because it was believed that they They're basically fundamentally all areas of VMEs. If I may add, you know, on the question of overfishing, there are provisions in the fish stocks agreement, Article 5, that obligate states to take measures to prevent or eliminate overfishing. And so— and this should be viewed as not only an issue of overfishing of target stocks but also other fish stocks or populations. There was— the Secretary-General's report mentioned new information that have come out on the range of bycatch of fish species as well as non-fish species or invertebrate species that have emerged in the last 4 years. And it's clear that quite a few of these, 1/6 of the areas at fishable depths or plus or minus, are still areas of concern and that the FAO guidelines calls for conducting impact assessments not only of bottom fisheries on BMEs but also on low productivity of fish species. Again, something that hasn't been effectively implemented. So the areas that are still open to bottom fishing, a large portion of those areas are seamounts, areas of high biodiversity particularly vulnerable to bottom trawling as we've heard this morning and over lunchtime. And this is again what's driving continued concerns over the trawl fishing in particular on seamounts. And finally— and the question is, do we wait until that knowledge, the knowledge of the life history characteristics of the hundreds of species being impacted by continued bottom trawl fishing on seamounts, is obtained to be able to properly assess whether there are significant adverse impacts on these species and ecosystems or not will take potentially decades, given that most of them are deepwater species about which little is known. Or do you implement paragraph 20 of Resolution 6472 until that knowledge is obtained? And then just a final, final brief comment that ICES Working Group on Deepwater Ecology stated in 2010 that the move-on rule is reactionary and not a precautionary measure and will lead to the degradation of VMEs over time. And that's in the context of not doing the proper assessment of where these VMEs are known or likely to occur in impact assessments before authorizing the bottom fishing. So thank you very much for indulging the long statement, but I appreciate being able to make the intervention. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Marco. And you did see me looking at you, but, but smiling while doing that, you know, because I, I know this is important to you as, as others in this room, of course. But I have, I have now 2 remaining speakers on the list, and, and we have 6 minutes left. So my plan is now to, to play a bit of a game of musical chairs tomorrow morning. And, and I really would like to get some closing remarks from our panelists. So I will ask you to come here again tomorrow morning at 10 AM for the closing remarks from this panel before we start the third. 90 seconds each, please. So I now would like to give the floor to Greenpeace, On mic 735, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Moderator, and all of the panellists. I will be brief. My question is primarily directed to NAFO, but we would welcome any additional comments from the other RFMOs, and maybe tomorrow you might be able to deliver those. NAFO has a long— oh, sorry. NAFO has long recognised the ecological importance of seamounts and began proactively protecting them as early as 2007. In contrast, bottom trawling in SPRIFMO still occurs primarily on seamounts, and as we heard from Australia in the intervention before, SPRIFMO hasn't been able to implement the 2023 consensus-agreed minimum level of VME indicator taxa protection for the last 3 consecutive Commission meetings. So my question, given that we are now in 2026 with substantially stronger scientific evidence on the vulnerability of seamounts and the significant adverse impacts that bottom trawling has on VMEs, what lessons or challenges can SPRIFMO learn from NAIFO's approach? Specifically, how was NAIFO able to build consensus amongst its member states to implement these protections? And what recommendations could you offer, or perhaps some of the other RFMOs offer, for SPRIFMO to move forward to implement the UNGA commitments to prevent significant adverse impacts? Thank you.

Thank you so much, Greenpeace. And, and the panelists will, will have some time to mull this over. Um, uh, we're close to, to the end, uh, and I want to— no, I will not take interventions now. I will wait until tomorrow, and I will give the floor to the, uh, on, on mic 6 The National Water Coalition of Colombia, if I'm not mistaken. You have the floor.

Distinguished Distinguished delegates, colleagues, and friends, we are the National Water Network from Colombia, as well creators of the National Water Corporation and the Water Committee of Biodiverse— the Senate Committee of Water and Biodiversity of the Senate of Colombia. I had the opportunity to be its creator, its advisor, and its secretary for the last 5 years, and it is a pleasure for us to be here in this space to talk in, in this workshop of the experience of Colombia. We stand here today at the United Nations headquarters in New York, a venue dedicated to global cooperation to address the long-term sustainability of our oceans and the protections of vulnerable marine ecosystems. We are reminded that the fight for water security and ecological balance begins at home, from the peaks of our mountains to the depths of our seas. It is in the spirit of urgent action and profound responsibility that I want to highlight the groundbreaking work of the National Water Network of Colombia for the protection of the ocean and for the fulfillment of the water law. Colombia is a nation defined by its immense biodiversity and its intricate network of rivers, wetlands, and marine coast. Recognizing that protecting this vital system requires unified actions, the National Water Network has become a cornerstone of our environmental strategy. They— we have successfully bridged the gap between national policy, scientific research, and traditional community knowledge. Through robust community-based water monitoring, reforestation projects of vital watersheds, and strict advocacy for sustainable fishing and coastal management practices, the network has transformed how we protect our aquatic life. We have empowered our local fishers, indigenous communities, and youth to become the true guardians of waters. We were directly— mirrors— or the work directly mirrors the spirit of the UN resolutions we are discussing today, an unwavering commitment to preventive— preventing destructive practices and ensuring that natural resources endure for generations to come. As we debate international frameworks for deep-sea fish stocks, let us bring our inspiration from Colombia's grassroots model, where sustainability cannot just be a text written in a resolution. We are giving it a living practice on the ground and in the water. This is why we bring for you as well our campaign, Water for the Future, and we look forward to be your partners in the implementation of all, all of water laws. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for that intervention. And, and those were the famous last words from the floor today. Um, I would like to thank again our distinguished panelists for the interesting insights they have shared with us and for the answers to our questions so far. Of course, my thanks go also to everybody who has participated actively in the discussions. Um, those have been exceptional, if you ask me. It's, it's everything I hoped for today, so thank you so much for that. Um, we will, as I mentioned, dear delegates, um, resume tomorrow at 10 AM sharp, and we will start with hearing closing remarks from our panelists today. And, and and any potential responses to questions. Before I go any further, I would like to thank the interpreters warmly for their service today, and for their patience with me going a minute past 6 o'clock. Thank you. You are dismissed with gratitude. Now, after we— We conclude segment 2 tomorrow morning, which we will do at 10 AM sharp because this now is a time management exercise. We have 2 panels after you. We will then resume with segment 3 entitled Progress Made by States in Addressing the Impacts of Bottom Fisheries on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks in particular through the implementation of relevant paragraphs of Resolution 64/72, 66/68, and 77/118. Thank you very much. Um, before concluding, let's check if there are any announcements. No, for the time being we don't have any, uh, those will wait until tomorrow. Distinguished delegates, thank you for today. See you at 10 AM sharp tomorrow morning. Looking forward to it. Have a wonderful evening.

Thank you.