(Opening, Segment 1) Workshop on sustainable fisheries, addressing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks

Good morning, everyone, or godan daginn. That's good day or good morning in my native language, Icelandic. I'm very happy to be here with all of you and to get to moderate this meeting. Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, delegates, friends, now let me begin by expressing what an honor it is for me to have been selected to moderate this workshop, the workshop with a very long name but the very meaningful and important substance. Now, delegations will recall that following the last review of the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks in 2016, the General Assembly decided to undertake a further review in 2026. Thereafter, in paragraph 243 of its Resolution 80/109 of 9 December 2025, the General Assembly recalled its decision in paragraph 223 of Resolution 77/118 of 9 December 2022 to conduct in 2026 a further review of the actions taken by states States and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements in response to paragraphs related to bottom fishing of Resolution 64/72, Resolution 66/68, and Resolution 77/118, with a view to ensuring the effective implementation of the measures therein and to make further recommendations where necessary and to precede that review with a 2-day workshop. The present workshop is convened pursuant to paragraph 244 of that resolution. It is open to states, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and other relevant specialized agencies, funds and programs, sub-regional and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements, other fisheries bodies, other relevant intergovernmental bodies, and relevant non-governmental organizations and relevant stakeholders in accordance with United Nations practice. The workshop therefore serves as an important opportunity for all relevant stakeholders to provide information which can form the groundwork for this important upcoming review in November. And I would just like to give a particular welcome to our NGO and stakeholders colleagues in the room. We are better with you in here. So happy to see you and everybody, of course. Now, since 2004, the General Assembly has been calling on states and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements to take a number of actions to address the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems. And the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks. While significant progress has been achieved at the global and regional levels, the General Assembly has implicitly recognized the need to continue regularly reviewing implementations of the provisions it has adopted to ensure effective implementation and to consider further recommendations where necessary. The presentations over the next 2 days will look at what progress has been made and where additional work needs to be focused. But it is in the discussions following the presentations when the considerable expertise and experience in this room will have the opportunity to interact, where the success of this workshop will be determined. I therefore urge your engagement and cooperation in the next 2 days to ensure that we make the most of the limited time available to us. And I really encourage all of you to interact wherever reason brings you here. We are in this together, let's remember. And we have the luxury that we're not negotiating yet. We will be doing so in November. But for now, let us just enjoy the deep dive discussions into an incredibly important and interesting subject. I would note also that in the mix of people in here are fisheries management experts, RFMO people, NGO people, academics, multilateral diplomats. I, for instance, can't be counted as such. I used to be based here in New York for 4 years as the ocean and law of the sea person for Iceland. And I just wanted to mention that I really, as a moderator, hope to get the most out of this workshop and the discussions for everyone in the room. many of you are incredibly knowledgeable about the fisheries aspects or the, or the ecosystem aspects, for instance. And, and let's try to make sure that everybody can follow the discussions and that it's useful for everybody, including for the delegates that will be negotiating in November. So that's it from me as, as the moderator. But just again, I'm incredibly honored to, to, to get to do this, and we will have a good time. You can consider me as your talk show host. There will be other people doing most of the talking and informing, but I will try to make sure we all have a good time, that we keep the discussions going, and make something useful out of this. Now, distinguished participants, before proceeding further, I would like to give the floor to the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea to make some brief opening remarks.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Moderator. Madam Moderator, welcome back to New York. It's a pleasure to see you presiding over this gathering. Madam Moderator, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Ms. Alina Ramos-Gilt, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Council, it is my pleasure to address this year's General Assembly workshop on the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks. You will recall that the present workshop, which is organized pursuant to the request of the General Assembly in Resolution 77/118, is intended to inform the review by the General Assembly of the actions taken by the States and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements in response to Resolution 64/72, 66/68, and 77/118. This review is aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the measures put in place by the General Assembly and to making further recommendations where necessary. I would like to focus today's remarks on 3 points. First, the 20th anniversary of the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 61/105 in 2006 presents an important opportunity to take stock of the important role the General Assembly has played in the normative development of international fisheries law, through the bottom fishing review process. General Assembly resolutions, like those on sustainable fisheries, represent an expression of global agreement on important policy objectives and can lead to concrete action. The adoption of Resolution 61/105 was a watershed event. For the first time, States agreed to implement concrete measures aimed at assessing and minimizing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks as a condition for continuing fishing activities. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations subsequently transposed the commitments set out in General Assembly Resolution 61/105 into actionable international guidelines in 2009. Over the course of the past 20 years, a set of binding measures have been put in place by States and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements with a mandate to regulate bottom fisheries on the basis of those recommended by the Assembly and consistent with international legal framework set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. An important element in the success of the General Assembly's action has been the holding of periodic reviews of the implementation of the recommended measures, which has also resulted in the elaboration of further measures in a number of General Assembly resolutions on sustainable fisheries. Over time, this led to the development of an increasingly robust legal and policy framework for addressing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks. Let me recall that this has also served as inspiration for the provisions of the 2023 Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, which we call usually BB&J Agreement. Madame la modératrice, distingués délégués.

Madam Moderator, distinguished delegates. The review by the General Assembly this year of the measures taken to address the impact of bottom fishing is particularly timely. The report on the global fisheries situation and aquaculture in 2026 indicates that global fish stocks continue to decline, 37.6% of stocks being now considered as overexploited or overfished. These stocks are enduring growing pressure from fishing activities but also other anthropic pressures and urgent measures are necessary in order to stem the tide. At the same time, we have seen major legal and scientific developments that also contribute to the reality of this review. Over recent decades, scientists have considerably deepened their understanding of marine ecosystem in the deep oceans and how much human activity has had an impact on these ecosystems. Regional and sub-regional fisheries management organizations have contributed to this deepened understanding thanks to their evaluation and monitoring activities. Furthermore, these bodies have continued to implement and to review the measures put in place and to strengthen mutual cooperation together with other sectors as well. In this regard, the adoption and entry into force of international instruments such as the BBNJ Agreement, the Global Biodiversity Framework for Common Morale, and the WTO Fisheries Subsidies Convention are major steps forward that could have an impact on fisheries management on the high seas. Madam Moderator, distinguished delegates, The third point I wish to raise is highlighting the important role of this workshop in the review process. This 2-day workshop plays a very important role as it supports and enhances dialogue between the different stakeholders and improves understanding of the scientific, technical, and practical aspects of implementation of the framework for addressing the impacts of bottom fishing in the high seas established in the relevant resolutions of the GA. It is crucial for understanding the perspectives of different stakeholders such as states, intergovernmental organizations including the FAO, and inter-regional and regional fisheries organizations and relevant together with intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, including environmental organizations and representatives of industry. The most— the majority of these stakeholders will not participate directly in deliberations when delegations meet in November in order to review implementation of the various resolutions in relation to Bottom fishing, but they do nevertheless have major contributions to make.

Madam Moderator, distinguished delegates, it's also important to note that the review is underpinned by the UNSG's report, which was prepared on the basis of information received from member states, sub- and regional fisheries management organization— organizations and arrangements. The preliminary version of that report is available on the DOAS website. I'd like to use this opportunity, therefore, to thank member states and organizations who contributed to the report. We also wish to underscore that the response rate was fairly low, which limits the comprehensive nature of the report. Distinguished participants.

Put these next 2 days to good use for interesting and informative discussions And I wish you also on behalf of Ms. Elinor Hammerskjöld, the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, a successful workshop. Thank you, Madam Moderator.

Thank you so much, Vladimir. And it is good to be back with you and other colleagues. And thank you for your multilingual statement. I'll have to teach you a few words in Icelandic before the next meeting, right? Now I would like to thank the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Mr. Vladimir Jares, for his very insightful opening statement. Distinguished participants, as regards the documentation for the workshop, I would like to draw your attention to the following documents which are available on the website of DOALOS. The provisional agenda of the workshop, the provisional organization of work for the workshop, advanced and unedited reporting material on actions taken by states and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements in response to bottom fishing-related paragraphs of Resolutions 6472, Resolution 6668, and Resolution 77118 on sustainable fisheries with full references. This is to say that The report essentially is online. The full texts of contributions from states and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements to the aforementioned report of the Secretary-General, and really thank you all for your contributions. The next document is an informal compilation of the aforementioned paragraphs. Of resolutions 64/72, 66/78, and 77/118. We also have information for participants. If you're here and haven't signed up, maybe consider doing so because we want everyone to be on file, on record that you were here. And last but not least, we have a document with a table of panelists. These documents are available on the division's website, which can be accessed electronically by scanning the QR code taped to the wall on the, on the side of the room. Electronic copies of the presentations made by panelists will also be made available on the website of DOALOS. As part of the table of panelists after the workshop, subject to agreement by the panelists. I would also like to draw attention of delegations to the fact that this workshop is being webcast on the UN Web TV. Unfortunately, this is only a one-way feed, so online observers will not be able to intervene in the meeting, but will be able to benefit from our discussions. So please share the link with, with with everybody who might be interested but could not make it here. Um, now panelists with pre-recorded presentations, if they're available, will be sent a link to a Teams meeting so that they can follow the discussion and answer any questions in writing through the chat feature. So we'll try to do our very best to include them because there are some who would very much have wanted Now, distinguished participants, let's move on and, and turn to the adoption of the agenda for our meeting. The proposed agenda consists of 6 items, namely: 1, opening of the workshop; 2, adoption of the agenda; 3, adoption of the organization of work; 4, adoption of the minutes of the last meeting; 4 panel segments, 1 to 5, 5 summary segment, and 6 closing of the workshop. May I take it that the— that it is the wish of the meeting to adopt this agenda? I see no objection. It is so decided. The agenda is adopted. Distinguished participants, I would like to suggest that we agree on the organization of our work for the workshop. According to the proposed organization of work, this morning we would commence our discussions with Segment 1 entitled Impacts of Bottom Fisheries on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and the Long-Term Sustainability of Deep Sea Fish Stocks. Thank you. This afternoon we will begin with segment 2 entitled Progress Made by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Arrangements 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 Resolutions 64/72 66/68 and 77/118. Tomorrow morning, 14th July, we will begin 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 the 3 resolutions, let's call them. And then we will proceed to segment 4 entitled Focus on the Experience and the Special Requirements of Developing 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 resolution— of the 3 resolutions. Tomorrow afternoon, we would continue our discussions with Segment 5 entitled Opportunities and Challenges in Further Addressing the Impacts of Bottom Fisheries on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and Long-Term Sustainability of Deep Sea Fish Stocks. Delegations will note that on Wednesday afternoon, tomorrow afternoon, from 5:30 to 6 PM, we would conclude our work with a half-hour closing segment. This segment will be an opportunity for participants to identify and highlight some of the main points that would have come out of our discussions during the workshop, as well as for me to share some impressions of the discussions. These points will be useful in the preparation of the summary of the moderator, which would represent the outcome of the workshop. Distinguished participants, in light of cost-saving measures within the Secretariat, it would be my intention to prepare a summary of no more than 4,900 words highlighting the main points of our discussion. I would also try to identify any themes or areas where further focus may be needed as discussed during the workshop. It is understood that the summary will be intended for reference purposes only and not as a record of our discussions. The summary will be prepared after the workshop and placed on the DOALOS website well in advance of the informal consultations of the draft General Assembly resolution on sustainable fisheries. Delegations will be given one week time to propose any technical corrections to an advanced and unedited draft prior to its finalization. Once finalized, it would also be my intention to send the outcome in a letter to the President of the General Assembly so that it can be discussed as a document of the General Assembly at its 81st session. Distinguished participants, I would also like to make a quick note about the purpose of the panel presentations that will be made over the course of the next 2 days. In preparing the organization of work, we have attempted to provide ample time for discussions During each of the panel segments. You will find that the panel presentations are very informative in nature. However, they are also intended to trigger a discussion among the various representatives in the room. For that reason, we have requested the panelists to make presentations of approximately 10 minutes each. Panelists will also be available during the panel segments to answer any questions. Please note that a number of presentations across panel segments 2 to 5 will be prerecorded. The panellists for these segments may be willing to answer questions related to the presentations in writing through the chat feature of the Teams meeting link. Again, so we will have them with us not only in spirit, but if we're lucky, also online too, to take questions and participate. Now, I would encourage the participants in this room to take the opportunity during the discussion segments to convey their own experiences on the issues, or that of their state, or organization, or what have you, that will be addressed in each panel segment. We are not intending the discussion segments to focus only on the activities and experience of particular panelists, who have very kindly agreed to act in this capacity, but rather we see this as an opportunity for participants to provide information on the range of their own experiences and their views on the issue we will discuss. The discussions are intended to be informal in nature— let me underline that— and we would encourage all delegations from member states, intergovernmental, and non-governmental organisations actively participate. And this can also be to, to ask questions, obviously, to, to the panelists, um, or whatever, um, you have— you will have, um, on your mind after the, after the panelists have made their presentations. Now, um, importantly, we might have you stand up right now and do a little exercise. Maybe not Joka, but, but together with secretariat, I have come up with a plan to ask the conference officers to remove the delegation names from the seats during the discussion panel segments. And I would ask delegations to stand up and move closer to the podium so that it feels a bit more that we're all in this together. I would also invite observers to move to the last row of the first section here on the, on the floor so that they are also closer. And I will explain better shortly, but, but first, may I suggest that we proceed on this basis? I see no I take those movements of hands as support. Thank you very much for that. We will now see the names of our countries disappear in front of us. I hope it's not too uncomfortable to those of us, you know, used to sitting behind our country name. I think it's fine. This is just to underline that we are all in this together, um, and we can identify ourselves, you know, as, as our country or our FMO or wherever, wherever we are from. If we take the floor, then that would be important for the conference officers, uh, and, and those taking notes to know who's speaking. Okay, let's give this, um, a minute or 2.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, while you take your seats, I will, um, introduce our panelists. Yeah, you can invite them to the front, and then, and then when they're here, you can introduce them. Okay, just tell them to come to the front. Okay, I will introduce the panelists, uh, once everybody has taken their seats. But I would invite the panelists for the first panel to come up here and join me at the podium.

Thank you.

Of course, for sure. Yes, really. Oh, this is a great idea. Don't you think? I love it.

I love it.

Thanks for that idea.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Nicholas Gutierrez.

Hi, Nicholas. I hear good things about you. Mr. Gutierrez.

Nice to meet you.

Mr. Gutierrez.

Hi.

Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you. Yours and yours because it's—

Okay.

Thank you very much. It's been pointed out to me that this is a new and confusing experience that we're messing around with the seating. I would ask all the stakeholders, so states in front, representatives of states on the front side, stakeholders in the last row, down on the floor. I see this is going in that direction. Is that clear enough? If we want to put the—

I don't know if we want to separate the IGOs and the NGOs, we can put the NGOs on the side.

Well, if we want to complicate things a little further, we could place the international government organizations in the second last row.

Yeah, yeah, or on this side.

But I don't think it's a huge issue. Um, take your seat where you— wherever you find a comfortable seat. But the sort of the main lines are that the state representatives are in the front and, and others, um—

Thank you.

will have their backs. Um, NGOs, IGOs, um, and if I'm forgetting somebody— no, no. All right, all right, all right. Okay, this is starting to look nice because this is a huge, huge conference room, and, uh, I— we really wanted to reinforce the, the sort of the sentiment that we're all in this together.

Who's—

yeah, I was going to say, why don't you— Yeah, okay.

I think—

was Patrick going to do it slower?

No, he's not.

Do you want me to move along? Yeah, please do.

Sure.

Okay, everyone, I hope you met new friends already and have found a nice seat. It's, um, this is a nicer way of, of starting this discussion, I think. And, and thank you for your flexibility here. Um, hoping for the same, of course, from all of us in November once we get to negotiate. Now, we will begin this morning with our first panel segment entitled Impacts of Bottom Fisheries on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and the Long-Term Sustainability of Deep Sea Fish Stocks. Panel 1 will provide scientific information on vulnerable marine ecosystems and deep sea fish stocks and the impacts of bottom fishing practices endure on these ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks. We will have 5 presentations under this segment, and in order to facilitate a dynamic exchange of views, we will hear from the first 3 of our panellists before having an initial exchange of views. Thereafter, we will hear from the second set of panellists, followed by an interactive discussion with all 5 panelists. The following panelists will participate in this segment. Mr. Nicolas Gutierrez, Senior Fisheries Officer, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the FAO. The title of his presentation is The Perspective of the Food and Agriculture Organization on the Impacts of Bottom Fisheries on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and the Long-Term Sustainability of Deep Sea Fish Stocks. Number 2, we have Mr. Simon Jennings, Vice Chair of the Advisory Committee International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, for short ICES. The title of his presentation is ICES Advice on VME Bottom Fishing Impacts and Deep Sea Fish Stocks. Thirdly, we will have Ms. Ellen Kensington, Senior Benthic Ecologist in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada. The title of her presentation is Evaluating Impacts of Disruption to Connectivity Networks and Potential Impacts of Climate Change in Support of the Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and Management of Deep Sea Fisheries. Fourthly, we will have Ms. Simi Payne, professor at Rutgers University and SEBS chair at Ocean Law Specialist Group International Union for Conservation of Nature. The title of her presentation is The International Union for the Conservation of Nature Resolutions on Protecting Seamounts and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems from Destructive Practices. Last but not least, Ms. Katrina Goddard marine scientist and lecturer at Tai Tokerau Mananga, North Tech Polytechnic. The title of her presentation is Identification of VMEs in the South Pacific: Turning Science into Policy and Implementing UNGA Resolutions. I now wish to give the floor to our first 3 panelists under Segment 1. Mr. Gutierrez, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Moderator. Good morning, distinguished delegates, participants. Waiting for just a moment for my presentation to load up. Thank you very much. Again, good morning distinguished delegates, participants. FAO welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. The question before this panel, how bottom fisheries affect vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks, is one of which FAO has worked for nearly 2 decades. Thank you. Supported by legal frameworks, guidelines, and also an evidence base. Let me start with a word on FAO's position and mission, because it will shape everything that I will say today. FAO works to maximize food and nutrition security and eradicate poverty while maintaining impact on the environment to acceptable levels. These are not competing objectives. They are in a way what FAO calls the 4 betters: better production, better nutrition, better environment, a better life for all, leaving no one behind. And effective management, effective fisheries management as outlined by FAO Blue Transformation Roadmap can in fact address these 4 betters. I mention this because it explains why FAO does not approach bottom fisheries from a single dimension. We are required by mandate to weigh food security against environmental costs, and we believe the evidence supports doing both, not choosing between them. However, FAO does not minimize the impact of bottom fisheries on deep sea ecosystems. Bottom contact gears damages cold water corals and sponge habitats that support biodiversity hotspots with recovery timescales of decades to centuries. In practical terms, that means impact in some areas are effectively irreversible within any management relevant time timeframes. Deep-sea species are uniquely vulnerable, slow-growing, late-maturing, unable to recover quickly. One of the most studied examples is orange roughy, including in parts of New Zealand, Australia, and the Northeast Atlantic. Catches declined sharply after initial depletion— sorry, initial expansion. In some cases with limited recovery, while others have achieved sustainable levels thanks to effective fisheries management. The biology makes boom and bust dynamics very difficult to avoid without rigorous science-based management. The impacts then are real and they are well documented, and it's precisely for this reason that the Deep Sea Fisheries Guidelines were designed to ensure bottom fishing is conducted within a framework that prevents significant adverse impacts. Again, it's for precisely these reasons that FAO member countries adopted the International Guidelines for the Management of Deep Sea Fisheries in the High Seas in 2008, what we refer to as the DSF guidelines. These guidelines were developed in direct response to the UN General Assembly Resolution 2006 calling on states to prevent significant adverse impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable ecosystems. The DSF guidelines, as you probably know, establish 2 legal— legally distinct but operationally Track 1, protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from significant adverse impacts through impact assessment, area closures, designated fishing footprints, and move-on rules when VME indicator species are encountered. Track 2, ensure the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks through rigorous stock assessments, reference points, and long-term management plans. Both tracks are mandatory, and as I will show, the implementation record on each has been very different. The maps on this slide tell an important story about what has changed since 2008. The number of regional fisheries management organizations, or RFMOs, with responsibility for bottom fisheries in the high seas has doubled. The area under regulatory coverage has tripled. And the area actually open to bottom fishing has been reduced to approximately 1/6 of what it was in 2000. Today, more than 80% of the deep sea areas in areas beyond national jurisdictions are closed to bottom fishing either through formal VME closures or through the precautionary restriction of fishing to historically fished footprints. These areas function in practice as de facto marine protected areas. This is a significant government achievement and it deserves to be recognized as such. And informs closure decisions by RFMOs worldwide. The database maps the distributions of BME indicator species and habitats across ocean basins and is continually updated as new data becomes available. It is the scientific backbone of the governance progress you saw on the previous slide, translating biological knowledge into spatial boundaries that protect these ecosystems. In 2024, FAO completed the first comprehensive review of the Deep Sea Fisheries Guidelines implementation 15 years after their adoption, and the findings are mixed. On Track 1, on VME protection, the review document what he calls a transformational change, as we have seen also in the previous slides. All 7 relevant RFMOs have implemented VME closures. Designated fishing footprints are in place. Move-on rules and encounter protocols have been adopted. Geographically, coverage now is quite comprehensive. On Track 2, fish stock sustainability, the picture is unfortunately weaker. 36% of the ABNJ deep-sea stocks remain unassessed. Reference points are absent for many of these stocks. Long-term management plans and harvest strategies are not widely implemented, and data-limited assessment methods suitable for this type of fisheries also are insufficiently implemented. FAO assessment is that the system has invested heavily in spatial protection and much less in the fisheries management tools that determine whether stocks are actually being fished sustainably. This slide presents the most defensible stock status figures available up to today. FAO State of the Stock Index that was published in 2025 actually introduced an updated methodology for assessing fish stocks that represent a significant improvement on previous approaches. Coverage was expanded from 500 stocks to 2,500 stocks, making the assessed assessment more geographically representative. The methodology also incorporated a more participatory process engaging more than 600 scientists from member states and RFMO bodies directly involved in validating stock status determinations for their respective areas. The result is a disaggregated region-by-region and management body-by-management body management body breakdown, which is the basis for the figures in this particular slide. Of all assessed ABNJ deep-sea stocks, 56% are considered sustainably fished. That is 20 stocks out of 45 assessed. When we look only at stocks managed by RFMOs, excluding Camilar, whose exceptional performance skews the aggregate figure upward. The picture is a bit more sobering. 38% are sustainably fished, and this is 12 out of 32 stocks. The comparison bar charts on the right put these figures into context. Deep-sea stocks, even at 56% sustainability, sit well below sharks, below the global average, and far below tunas, which are currently at 87% sustainably fished. This gap reflects an underinvestment in stock assessment and effective fisheries management for the deep-sea fish stocks. However, FAO message is not one of pessimism. Sustainability in deep sea fisheries is achievable. We know this because we have a clear example. The most evident one is from CCAMLR, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and particularly the Antarctic toothfish fishery. 100 of Antarctic toothfish stocks are sustainably fished. Each of these fisheries developed from an unfished state to a sustainably fished state without becoming overfished. How was it done? A precautionary catch limit was set to 50% of initial spawning biomass. That is more conservative than MSY, maximum sustainable yield. Science-based and properly implemented harvest control rules. A robust observer coverage, 100% observer coverage. A catch documentation scheme that controls IUU fishing. And an ecosystem approach that is embedded in the founding convention itself. Thank you.

Itself.

But the Kamilar Antarctic toothfish might not be the only successful case, and the common thread across successful deep-sea fisheries management is quite consistent: rigorous stock assessment based on good quality data, precautionary catch limits, spatial protections, and of course compliance. These are the standard tools of fisheries management, properly designed based again on good quality data and science base, properly monitored and complied with. Which this brings me to an important question: can bottom fisheries including bottom trawling be sustainable? And if the answer is yes, but only with adequate and effective fisheries management. The sustainability of any fishery is determined by the quality of its management, not necessarily by the type of gear used. Gear interact with habitats in ways that matter, but the management system surrounding the gear is what ultimately determines the outcome. Bottom fisheries are important. They contribute to food security and livelihoods across local, regional, and global value chains. For many fishing communities, particularly in the Global South, fish caught by bottom contact gear is not necessarily a luxury product. It is food and it's income, and it's also happening across a large and small-scale fisheries. Any limitations on bottom fishing must therefore assess its impact on food access and nutrition, not only on habitats. On bans and blanket restrictions, FAO recognises the policy appeal of simple rules, but the data are clear. For example, bycatch ratios in bottom fisheries range from 3 to 90% and discard rates from 24 to 70%. A single rule cannot be appropriate given this huge variability. Restrictions without any individual fishery analysis risk, for example, transferring effort to other resources and other habitats, potentially generating new environmental impacts that offset or exceed any conservation gains. On MPAs, it's worth recalling what I showed in my previous slides. More than 80% of the deep sea areas in ABNJ are currently closed to bottom fishing and function as de facto marine protected areas. In fact, only around 2.6% of the ABNJ is actually fished by bottom contact gears. That context matters when evaluating calls for further spatial restrictions. MPAs are of course a valuable tool, but the evidence suggests the limiting factor is not a shortage of closed areas. It is the absence of effective fisheries management in these areas that remain open. On alternatives, replacing fish protein with land-based protein is not environmentally neutral. The full life cycle cost must be weighted, and FAO Forbeter frameworks require us to look at the whole picture in a multidimensional matter. What is FAO doing? A few examples through the GEF-funded Common Oceans Deep Sea Fisheries project. FAO is working directly with all 7 relevant RFMOs and members to strengthen stock assessment capacity, develop harvest strategies, and improve the scientific basis for management decisions. This is exactly what the Track 2 work that the 15-year review identified as the priority gap. FAO is supporting these practical transitions better data and better science, more effective management, and stronger governance. However, FAO cannot do this alone. Of course, members, development agencies, industry, NGO, civil society organizations must work together. Let me close with 4 messages. The DSF guidelines are the reference standard. Again, adopted in 2008, reviewed in 2024, they provide internationally agreed criteria for VMEs identification, significant adverse impact assessment, and fisheries management. They remain the governing framework included in the context of the BBNJ agreement. RFMOs have made real significant progress on VME protection. The transformational change on Track 1— closures, footprints, move-on rules, and counter-protocols— deserves acknowledgement. Fish stock sustainability is the unfinished agenda. Stock assessment, science-based reference points, and long-term management plans remain insufficiently implemented. This is where the effort must now be concentrated. Effective management, not gear type alone, is what prevents harm and ensures sustainability. For bottom fishing, the test is outcome-based, not gear-based. Where impact assessments show that significant adverse impact on VMEs can be prevented, fishing can proceed. For deep-sea fish stocks, the tool exists— again, stock assessment, reference points, harvest strategies. The task is to strengthen the efforts to implement them, and Camelar has proved both are achievable together. Thank you very much. FEO stands ready to support this process with technical expertise, data, and the normative frameworks the member states require, and of course. Of course, I'm happy to take any questions, I guess, after the other 2 panelists. Thank you very much.

I thank Mr. Gutierrez for his presentation. We are off to a good start. And I now wish to give the floor to our second panelist. Mr. Jennings, you have the floor.

Well, good morning. Thank you, Chair, and welcome, delegates and participants. Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of ICES. To say briefly who we are to those of you not familiar, we're an intergovernmental science organization, and one of our responsibilities is to provide impartial advice on the state and sustainable use of the seas and oceans with a focus on the Northeast Atlantic, and we give advice in response to requests from governments and intergovernmental organizations. Much of our work links to the resolutions 6472, 66, 68, and 77118 that were mentioned already this morning particularly the scientific and technical aspects, given our remit as ICs. So that's focusing on best available science, the uptake of scientific research, and development and implementation of assessment methods. In terms of the advice we provide on VMEs, we give recurrent advice, that is advice on an annual or biannual frequency on locations where VMEs are known to occur and are likely to occur, and this is based on a regular update of data on distributions of VMEs and also of mobile bottom contacting fishing activity. We also give a range of advice which we call special request advice, particularly to NEAF as their science advisors, and this addresses the appropriateness and effectiveness of management measures to protect VMEs and also development of the ecosystem approach. And when these talks are circulated afterwards, you'll find links on the PDF to examples of this work. Today I'm mostly going to focus on the recurrent advice on where VMEs occur and are likely to occur. The advice that we give in ICES is underpinned by 3 things. Firstly, data which we collate on the distribution of VMEs, and this is done through an annual data call to member countries, and it deals with both ABNJ and with VME occurrence within EEZs. And there's a formalised process by which that data is gathered and quality assured by our data centre and by the ICES Working Group on Deep Water Ecology. The other input to the advice that we give is VMS data which is used to describe the footprint of bottom fishing activity and we again hold an annual data call that brings together vessel monitoring system and logbook data and we aggregate this, or the countries submitting this aggregate it, on these 0.05 by 0.05 latitude-longitude sea squares. Again, this data goes through a formalised process of data assimilation and quality assurance that's led by the Working Group on Spatial Fisheries Data and our data centre We also assimilate data directly from NEAF as a data submission. And then finally, and particularly important, are the experts that contribute to ICES' work. These participate in over 100 expert groups annually, either in working groups which meet year after year, or in targeted workshops to address specific topics. And those experts run analyses, conduct reviews, and provide interpretation, which provides the knowledge synthesis or knowledge basis for the advice. I'll say a little bit more about the advisory process related to VMEs in a moment, but I want to briefly touch on the VME database, because the evidence provided by this database underpins much of what we do in relation to VMEs. So this database was launched back in 2012. It covers the areas of the Northeast Atlantic. The little white spots there show the location of all the records in the database. It follows transparent processes for the collation of data, the data flow, and quality assurance. This is all published information, and within the database we have VME habitat records, which are bona fide records, for example from visual observations of the locations of VMEs. We also maintain VME indicator records, which are, for example, from records of VME indicator species being taken in bycatch. Increasingly now we try to include VME absence records These are particularly important for predictive habitat modelling because we want to know where VMEs don't occur as well as where they do occur. The growth of the database has gone from around 15,000 records when you held— well, it would have been 2 cycles ago of these UNGA meetings— till today when we have just over 75,000 records including as I— as you can see, a number of absence records. So, as I say, this is one part of the work that we do to feed information into the advisory process. The advisory process itself follows a series of steps that take us from a knowledge synthesis on VMEs, through a peer review process, through to advice production and advice release. The knowledge synthesis stage is based on data collation, analysis, and interpretation by the expert groups which I mentioned. So, although we primarily draw on 3 or 4 groups to do this work, we can draw on groups across the network of 100+ groups if we need it. The work that they do goes out to peer review, or we adopt methods that have been peer-reviewed in what we call a benchmark. Process, and that work is then taken to an advice drafting group which turns the knowledge basis into advice, and that then passes through the Advisory Committee which comprises our 19 member countries, and they review the draft advice, and once they've reached consensus that it's of adequate quality to sign off and meets our necessary standards, then the advice is released. And this whole process is governed by a series of advisory principles. I won't go through these in detail, but what I do want to emphasise is a focus on the best available science, applying FAIR data principles, ensuring we have peer review and agreement by consensus. So, this underpins the quality of the work that we're able to do. In terms of the development of the VME advice, this follows a common process both in areas beyond national jurisdiction and in the EZs of the different countries, so I'll take you through the process in a combined way and then indicate later on where the split occurs. We take the VME habitat records from the database, as I say bona fide records, Then from the VME indicator records, we identify areas with high, medium, and low VME index. This, if you like, is a proxy for likelihood of occurrence. This is then used in 2 ways to either produce what we call VME polygons at the scale of these 0.05 by 0.05 sea squares, or it's used directly for mapping of the sea squares where VMEs occur and are likely to occur. So in terms of the advice that we give within the EEZs, we classify the polygons based on this high, medium, or low VME index or the presence of VME habitat, and we have a series of processes that allow us to take these sea squares that have these different designations and to form polygons from those where we indicate that VMEs occur or are likely to occur. And there's a series of rules for doing this. I don't need to go into these in detail. It's more to show you the process on the background pack that will be made available. But what I do want to emphasise in relation to the significant adverse impacts on VMEs is that a number of these methodologies take account of past impacts on VMEs, and we have this 0.43 threshold for the so-called swept area ratio that is used to define VMEs where there is a past probability of significant adverse impacts having occurred and VMEs where there's a low probability of such impacts having occurred, and that feeds through under 3 different scenarios in the advice we give. In relation to the recurrent advice we give to the European Union, we then produce a series of interactive products that show both the distribution of known VME habitat and areas where VMEs occur and are likely to occur, and the polygons where we have used that information to draw these areas that we include in the advice. We also, for NEAF, use a slightly different approach where we don't form polygons, but we directly provide information on areas where VMEs occur and are likely to occur using again these records of VME habitats and the VME index, and we complement that with separate information on the distribution of fishing activity from the VMS data. Of course, the science basis underpinning the work we do on VMEs is continually evolving and consistent with the resolutions that were mentioned in the introduction to this workshop, we try to include the best available science in our processes, and we have a formal mechanism for doing this which is called the benchmark process, and this allows us to peer review and incorporate new science in the provision of the advice that we give, and guidelines formalize the process that we follow for doing this. So since we last benchmarked the methods in 2022, many of you in this room will be aware of the very significant advances that have taken place in the understanding of VMEs, and so now in 2027 we're conducting a benchmark to assimilate these, and the benchmark's going to take account of very wide-ranging feedback we've received the methods and on the advice from expert groups, requesters of the advice, and a wide range of stakeholders. And the new benchmarking will allow us to update our methods, and we're preceding this benchmarking in 2027 with a series of preparatory actions which are now well underway. So the preparatory actions are taking account of new research and science, and that includes analytical methods and a whole range of issues that have been raised by the people who request advice from ICs, scientists, and stakeholders. And the 6 areas we're working on are firstly to review historical data in the VME database. That's now been completed, and a small number of updates have been made to the database I described. We're working to make the analyses significantly more transparent. In practice, this means putting all the code on what we call the ICES Transparent Assessment Framework so that other scientists can see and follow the approaches we take. We're conducting 2 workshops on the impacts of static gear on the seabed. One has already taken place and one is scheduled for for later this year. We've just last year completed a second workshop on predictive habitat modelling, which we're hoping we can use as a basis for determining where VMEs are likely to occur. We're working to review the VME index that I described, and we're conducting comparisons of different spatial scales of analysis particularly with an interest in trying to remove the latitudinal dependence of the C² system that I've described to you and which we're currently using. Finally, just to say a word or two about our work on deep-sea stocks and the knowledge basis and assessments for these. This is something ICES have been working on now for 3 decades or so, and we've been doing 2 things. One, trying to develop methods to improve the assessment of deep sea species and secondly trying to integrate those into our advisory process. Just in this last period from 2022 to the present, I'd point out especially our engagement with the FAO Deep Sea Fisheries Project which was described to us and ICES is now supporting that through work on methodological development. We've again been holding these benchmark workshops for a number of deep sea stocks and as a result we're trying to incorporate new methodologies in the ways we conduct these assessments and this work is ongoing on a continuous basis. Much of the work is done by our working group on the biology and assessment of deep sea Fisheries Resources, WG Deep. They're now conducting assessments for around 25 stocks, and we also have other expert groups within our network conducting small numbers of assessments for deep-sea species. We also try to put a lot of this fisheries advice now in a wider context, and we do that particularly through the development of ecosystem overviews. These describe the state and use and pressures on the ecosystems that are affected by fisheries and other human activities, and we provide those for the oceanic Northeast Atlantic. For the same area, we also provide an overview of the fisheries and their impacts on deep-sea fisheries. So thank you, that's all I have to say, but as I say, many of the Points I've made are linked on the PDF version of the presentation, and you can follow any of those of interest. Thank you very much.

I thank Mr. Jennings for his presentation, and I now wish to give the floor to our 3rd panelist. Ms. Kensington unfortunately was not able to be here today due to health issues. Temporary ones, I would add. But she has instead provided us a prerecorded presentation, which I will now ask the Secretariat to play.

Thank you for the opportunity to—

Noting that Ellen, Ms. Kensington, is online as far as I know. So hello, and looking forward to listening to you.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today, and I hope that this presentation will be helpful in providing you with an update on work underway in NAFO to incorporate connectivity and climate change into scientific advice for management decisions on VMEs. It has been more than 2 decades since international policy for sustainable fisheries has called for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems. Systems from the harmful effects of bottom contact fishing, and in that time significant progress has been made on their identification, distribution, ecosystem role, and protection. Since the last bottom fishing workshop, 2 additional elements have been introduced into policy: connectivity and climate change. Connectivity was introduced in 2022, while the impacts of climate change which were first identified in 2016, were further elaborated on by 2022. Identifying areas where deepwater species and VMEs are likely to better survive climate impacts, and conversely areas where the fauna will experience new environments and so may be subject to additional physiological stresses, are critical elements for conservation planning. Both connectivity and climate change impacts can be assessed using high-resolution ocean model products, which are readily available for all of the world's oceans. Connectivity can be assessed by modeling particle dispersal to mimic transport of gametes and larvae using data on current velocities from the ocean models. Species distribution models predict species habitats by correlating known species locations with environmental factors, predict presence in unsampled areas. These models can use present-day and projected future climate data alongside chosen climate models and emission scenarios to map potential species ranges. The outcome is a prediction of habitat suitability showing areas where a species might persist, colonize, or decline, offering critical data for conservation and management decisions. For example, here the presence probability of the bubblegum coral along the Scotian Shelf is predicted using ocean model projections to mid-century. 2045 to 2065. Areas in red show areas of high probability of presence for this species. Identification of climate refugia, or areas where environmental conditions are predicted to remain unchanged in future, can help in identifying areas where VMEs are likely to better survive. Areas in green identify the climate refugia for the bubblegum coral at mid-century. While areas in yellow show where one of the variables in the model falls outside of the conditions previously experienced, and so will require adaptation—a property for which we have very little information on, but which can affect survivorship and reproduction. In NAFO, connectivity modeling and species distribution modeling have been undertaken. to assess and prioritize climate-induced impacts. A suite of ocean model products from 22 CMIP6 models, the latest generation of fully released global ocean and climate models, were ensembled and statistically downscaled using neural networking. Species distribution models were run using 44 water column variables projected for 4 time periods under each of 4 emission scenarios. In addition to the water column variables, one static variable associated with the terrain, or the sea floor, was also used to anchor the predictions. I won't have time to go into details of this modeling, but species distribution modeling is significantly more complex under future conditions. While present-day modeling requires correlating known species occurrences with current environmental data, Future projections introduce added layers of uncertainty, which need to be examined and interpreted. Next is a preview of our results for the black coral to illustrate how this information can be used to inform management decisions. Black corals are very long-lived, with some aged over 1,000 years, and individuals present today are likely to be present at the end of this The dominant species in the NAFO study area is called Stauropathys arctica, shown on the right. This is a large coral found from the tail of Grand Bank and Flemish Cap north to Greenland and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Species distribution modeling shows the climate refugia for the black coral in gray and areas of univariate extrapolation Causing novel environments in orange for the reference period and the 4 successive time periods to the end of century under SSP2 4.5, which is a middle-of-the-road emission scenario and one suggested for climate planning and risk assessments. You can see the progressive loss of climate refugia in gray over time. Climate refugia in P1 are shown in yellow in relation to the black coral VMEs shown by red polygons and the closed areas shown in blue outline. The largest VMEs are labeled in order of their size on the left panel. 3 of the 4 largest VMEs are in climate refugia in the near term, as shown by the green coloring. While one, BC-4, will experience a novel environment with unknown consequences. Overlaying the closures on the right panel shows that all but BC-4 have partial protection under the present-day closures, with BC-2 the best protected. Such overlays can be useful in discussing management options to improve conservation effectiveness. By mid-century, there are 2 large VME areas on Flemish Cap that are expected to be under novel environmental conditions, as they do not overlap with the yellow areas. Monitoring of those areas can help to inform whether the corals are showing adaptive responses. Identification of the variable causing the novel conditions can help to determine adaptation potential. The variables responsible for creating the novel environments under P1 and P2 are primarily the minimum bottom temperature and the mean mixed layer depth in summer. Depth is a static variable in that it doesn't change, and so although there are areas outside of the depth range for this species, it is not changing over time. Looking more closely at minimum bottom temperature, there is warming through to end of century with temperatures above 7.5 degrees Celsius for large areas. This information can be used to assess adaptation potential and to inform thermal stress experiments in the lab. Connectivity was separately assessed using the particle tracking models mentioned previously and used to provide further context to the role of each black coral VME. This area is influenced by very strong bottom currents. The resulting connectivity network was highly directed and relatively sparse with only 10 of the 64 possible links being realized reflecting the Both those strong bottom currents and the very short larval duration of the black coral. The 3 largest VMEs— BC1, BC2, and BC3— occurred on Flemish Cap. And of these, BC1 had the highest connectance linking to BC2 and BC4, while BC1 and BC2 also connected with each other. All 4 of the largest VMEs showed self-loops indicating larval retention and therefore the potential for self-recruitment. And simulations indicated that removal of BC1 would have the strongest effect on the natural connectivity network, followed by removal of BC3. Areas such as BC1 and BC2 may warrant particular attention because of their connectivity properties and location relative to climate refugia. So to summarize, present-day conservation areas closed to bottom contact fishing may remain relevant in the near term, especially on Flemish Cap, but their effectiveness as climate refugia is likely to decline substantially by mid to late century under most scenarios. This challenges the effectiveness of the current configuration of closed areas in future and supports the need for monitoring and periodic reevaluation. For black corals in NAFO, areas such as BC1 and BC2 may warrant particular attention because they combine present ecological significance relative persistence of analogue conditions in the short to medium term, and an important role in larval exchange, while also being at least partially protected by bottom fishery closures. The full results of the climate impact assessments will be presented at the November 2026 meeting of the NAFO Scientific Council Working Group on Ecosystem Science and Assessment, or WGESA. I'd like to leave you with this key message. End-of-century conservation, which is relevant to long-lived sessile marine species such as many VME indicators, depends on protection of environmentally analogous and connected areas. Thank you very much for your time today. Thank you.

I would like to ask the Secretariat to convey our thanks to Ms. Kensington for her presentation, or if you're listening, thank you very much, Helen. Now, distinguished delegates, before turning to our remaining panelists, I would like to open the floor for any questions or Statements, interventions, comments relating to the first 3 presentations. Are there any delegations that wish to take the floor at this stage? Doesn't have to be the states, obviously, it can be anyone, and I see somebody over there, and— Mr. President, Mr. President, please. Please just ask the button. Please introduce yourself. Thank you.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. This is Dr. Kimmy Cushman from Plant-Based Treaty, scientific advisor. I had a question for Mr. Guterres from FAO. I was surprised to see your example that the assessments found that 100% of Antarctic toothfish trawling is considered sustainable. I was wondering if assessments like these consider longer-term effects on other species of animals and also plant species, and not just the populations of the toothfish themselves. It's obviously important to— that sustainability takes into account all these— the interconnection between the species affected within the ecosystem. And also, your summary slide said that land-based protein alternatives carry a higher environmental cost. And I was wondering if— are you referring specifically to land-based animal proteins? Because we know that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that animal agriculture is causing extreme harm to the environment. So saying that land-based alternatives carry higher environmental costs seems to overlook the opportunity of land-based plant proteins, because we know that if we shift globally to plant-based proteins, we would be able to reforest and rewild 75% of agricultural land. So if we switch from land and sea-based animal protein to plant proteins, this wouldn't just be sustainable, but it would be a huge benefit to reversing the damage that's been done on land while leaving the seas to recover. Thank you.

Thank you very much, representative of the Plant-Based Treaty, if I heard correctly, for those questions. Mr. Gutierrez, would you— would you like to respond, please?

Yes, thank you very much for, for your question. Uh, in terms of the Antarctic toothfish for Camilar, indeed. Um, so the assessments for all fisheries within the Camilar area consider the impact on bycatch of all species, including ETP species, and also the ecosystem-based management is embedded into the Kamala Convention as well, so that is integrated into the assessment and the management of these fisheries. With respect to the statement that land-based food production carries a higher environmental cost, this was not the case of my conclusion. I said that when you consider the impacts on the environment from fisheries and how that will be translated into the environmental cost on land that needs to be properly addressed, not just based on the fact that— sorry, now I got confused here. So in a way, the whole life cycle of food production needs to be considered both in land and marine.

Thank you very much, Mr. Gutierrez. And to the person taking the floor, I didn't get the name, but just to thank you very much for being brave enough to be the first person on the floor to take to the mic.

And we—

yes. And we have somebody asking for the floor. I believe I saw you behind the China sign previously, but please identify yourself. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, moderator. I'm from China. My name is Susu. I'd like to thank the panelists for their presentations, which are really helpful. I'm a scholar in fisheries management focusing on marine fisheries policy, and one of the core issues I focus on is How do we integrate policy into management? How do we base ourselves on the best available science in producing the management policy? So my question goes to ISIS. I just heard that in your presentation you mentioned the best available science many times. So I'd like to know How do you view this term? Because in management and decision-making, we know that it's one of the principles to follow, but in practice, sometimes it's hard to tell which is the best available scientific information. And as a follow-up, 2 more questions. In your point of view, Let's say the knowledge of indigenous populations and fishers or the frontline enforcement personnel, does that knowledge count as best available science? And if these different sources of knowledge are in conflict or are inconsistent, how do we make sure of what the best available scientific information is? Thank you.

Thank you very much to the delegate of China, and this was a question to you, Mr. Jennings, so I would ask you to respond.

Yeah, thank you very much for your question about best available science. We use the term to refer to science that's typically behind the crest of the scientific wave. So if you imagine at the very crest of the wave is current R&D science done primarily by the academic community that may still be contested, and as that wave progresses, the science becomes more mature, less contested, and typically is in a position where it can be translated into advice that we're able to give. So, in practical terms, that might mean stable analytical code, large groups reaching consensus that this is an acceptable way forward, and then the filter we would place on it in ICs are the— 2 of the steps that I showed in the slide of our advice process. One, that it goes through the peer review process successfully, and we always try to peer review from outside the immediate community, and then the other filter is that it would be scrutinized by the 19 member countries of our advisory committee, and they, of course, draw on their own networks of experts. So, to reach that level of consensus, typically the science has to be the best available within the context which I describe. The second part of your question mentioned the integration of stakeholder information. We are making progress with this in ICES. It isn't our primary source of information because it isn't always available in a form that allows it to be taken into our analytical processes, but we have a number of groups that are actively focused on stakeholder engagement, particularly in the context of the fishing opportunities advice, and we take stakeholder information very seriously in terms of allowing us to focus scientific work that we conduct. So, for example, if stakeholders identify errors in the work that we've done, or they raise issues that we haven't considered in the work that we've done, then we try to take that information into the relevant expert groups who can consider that information and whether any further development of our science and advice is necessary as a result. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Simon, for that thorough answer, and to China for the interesting question. Now, we have 2 more speakers at least in the line of speakers, and first, on mic 734, We have the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative. You have the floor.

Thank you. Hello everyone, my name is Dr. Amy Bocko-Taylor. I'm here representing the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative. My question is also for Mr. Gutierrez. In your presentation, you mentioned that a ban on fisheries was not an option because of food security. However, there was a paper published in Science in 2018 by Schiller et al. that analyzed global data and came to the conclusion that high-seas fisheries are only 4.2% of annual marine capture fisheries. They also found that outside of tuna, most of the products of these high-seas fisheries goes to developed, food-secure nations. Therefore, they concluded that high-seas fisheries play a negligible role in global food security. So to me, that means that this peer-reviewed conclusion leaves open the option for bans for specific high seas habitats, for example seamounts or deep sea fish stocks, because they would not have an impact on global food security? Thank you.

Thank you very much for that question. Getting closer to the more difficult aspects of this discussion, I would say. This was a Question for— was that for Mr. Gutierrez, right? Yes, it was. Thank you, and you have the floor.

Thank you very much for the question. We are aware of that review. The FAO position in terms of bottom fishing is not necessarily just related to the high seas, which we acknowledge that the volumes of the catch from the high seas are quite low. And in that respect, one needs to weigh what are the environmental costs versus the food production that a banning on the bottom trawling high seas could incur. So it's about assessing the real impacts of particular bottom fisheries and assess that in the context again of food security on livelihoods. In fact, there are many fisheries, bottom fisheries globally, that produce significant volumes. And this is not just important in terms of food security. We have unpublished data from FAO where bottom fisheries also are also important for small-scale fisheries. Of course, again, when we are talking about bottom trawling or bottom fisheries in the high seas, that is a different story. And again, as I mentioned before, we need to weigh the environmental cost versus the food production and the livelihood cost. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Gutierrez. And we have more signing up. Yes, here we go. Next, I would invite Japan to pose a question or make a statement. Thank you very much. And Japan is on 638. Yes. Thank you.

Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Good morning to everybody. Thank you very much for the presentation. I have one question to Mr. Jennings. It's a technical one, but during your presentation, I think you mentioned about the VME indicators, and the indicators say high, medium, low. I'd like to know how the ICES identifies the high, medium, low, because saying high, medium, low is very easy, but it's a little bit difficult how high is high. So I'd like to know your criteria. To identify the high, medium, low? This is a question to you. And I have one comment on the previous speakers. As FAO mentioned, there is an importance for the food security, but also there are the importance to collect the data from the fisheries. And also the number, perhaps the amount of the catch is very small in the high seas.

Yes.

compared with other area, but there is fisheries. If there is fisheries, there are many people depend on the fisheries. So for instance, just one vessel is operating in high seas seamount area, but just one vessel provides the fisheries product to their town, then there are so many processing factories depends on that catch. So yes, the amount is a matter, but sometimes amount doesn't matter for talking about the importance of the fisheries. So this is just a comment, but I have a question to Mr. Jennings. Thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you very much for the question about the VME indicator and the development of the VME index. There are 2 components used in the development of that index, and they are the sensitivity, or some say vulnerability, of the VME indicator species to impacts, and they're the relative abundance of that VME indicator species. And the idea of this when it was originally formulated was it would help provide an indication of likely to occur, and a split was made on the distribution of values of these indicators to simply define the high, medium, and low categories. It's good you asked the question, in fact, because based on scientific and stakeholder feedback, we feel that that indicator could be improved to provide a better probability of likely to occur, and we actually have a workshop on that specific topic being held in October, which ICES will be advertising, to look at this once again. The other line of inquiry we're also pursuing in advance of the benchmark is to consider if habitat distribution models, species distribution models can be used as another way of developing a measure of likelihood of occurrence that would not necessarily require the indicator to be used in its present form. So thank you for the question.

Thank you very much, Mr. Jennings. And on my list, I have next on mic 725. The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you, Ms. Moderator. Matthew Gianni from the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. 2 questions, one for ICES, for Simon Jennings, and one for FAO, Mr. Guterres. With respect to the habitat suitability modelling that you mentioned, this is something that ICES ICES has been discussing for at least since 2013, from what I recall. And I'm wondering when would you expect or think, if you could, to kind of predict this as to when that modeling would be used? And I say this in the context of, as I understand it, that ICES makes no recommendations on whether there is a VME or not a VME, high, medium, low, or whatever, on the sea squares, on the areas where there is actually no data, but which of course could be fished given the depth of the bottom in those areas. And that's been, for us at least, a challenge in terms of the ICES advice both in ABNJ as well as in areas within national jurisdiction. But also wondering whether the new benchmarking will take into consideration the provisions in the 2022 UNGA Resolution 77118 in paragraphs 211 through 213, which calls for assessing the impacts on associated and dependent species, not just VME indicator species, as well as biodiversity beyond VMEs. And also calls for increased understanding of connectivity within and amongst VME indicator— VME vulnerable marine ecosystems, including their associated independent species. And then finally, I'm wondering whether ICES is looking at the potential recovery of areas where VMEs have likely occurred in the past, but because of the sweat area ratio that ICES uses, basically advises that there's probably no VME left or VME species left worth protecting. And also, is ICES looking at VME climate refugia? And again, this is in paragraph 218 of Resolution 77/118 adopted in 2022. And if I may, the question to the FAO is similar. Mr. Gutierrez, are you looking at potentially— is the FAO looking potentially at assessing how to assess impacts or evaluate the impacts of VME, of bottom fishing on associated independent species and not just VME indicator species as well as biodiversity beyond? Uh, vulnerable marine ecosystems. And again, this is, as I mentioned to— in the question to Mr. Jennings, um, uh, an element of the, uh, of the Resolution 77-118, paragraphs 20— 2— 211 through 213. And then just to follow from the, uh, the, uh, question or the comment from Dosi, we did a, a kind of an assessment in 2021 of actually how much fish is coming off of— out of bottom trawl fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction on seamounts and associated features. And we came up with the figure, roughly speaking, about 20,000 tonnes, which is of course a small fraction of the 80 million tonnes of marine capture fisheries— in marine capture fisheries. And I'm just wondering if, you know, again, whether that— and that the The products from those seamount fishery— trawl fisheries were going primarily to the US, Europe, and Japan. So again, a food security issue. We didn't see a challenge in terms of food security there as well. But thank you for allowing me to ask the questions and look forward to the responses. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the questions. from the person who knows all these resolutions by heart. And I would just quickly note that time is flying, and it's a luxury problem that we have many wishing to take the floor. Before I ask our panelists to respond, I would say that I now have 4 speakers asking to take the floor and make statements or questions. to the 3 first panelists. I will cut the list short after those 4 have made their interventions. If necessary, I will do it sooner than that, because we want to make sure we have time for our last 2 panelists and for discussions with them. First, I would take on mic 643, 3, the delegation of Spain, you have the floor. And now let's maybe all try to keep in mind to be fairly quick, but of course before Spain gets the floor, I would ask you to respond to the previous 2 questions, Mr. Jenneks and Mr. Gutierrez.

Yeah, thank you very much, Matt, for the question. I'll try to be relatively brief. The benchmark process which we're running next year is run as an open workshop, and anyone is invited to bring any relevant science to the table. But of course, to turn that science into something that can be used in the advisory process, it has to be relatively mature, because it has to become part of a process. On associated independent species, You will know they were mentioned in the 2024 advice that we gave to NEAF on recommendation 19/2014. Again, if the science in that area is mature, there would be no reason to exclude them from the workshop. On recovery, we're very aware of the wide amount of work that's been done since our last benchmark, particularly the work and associated reviews on recovery rates, and that would certainly be something that would be considered, as would its potential effects on thresholds. In relation to climate refugia, anything that's done in that area will likely depend on the maturity of the science. We've just heard from Ellen about some of the excellent science that's being done, and again, it will be a case of the maturity of that science and its applicability across the whole region we advise on, so both Northeast Atlantic ABNJ but also within EU marine waters and whether there is science that can be used on that sort of scale. So thank you for the question.

Thank you for the question on ecosystem and biodiversity impact. Yes, these studies are directly in scope for the Deep Sea Fisheries Project that FAO is implementing. Actually, the work program explicitly covers bycatch species including deepwater sharks, VME indicator species, and other ecosystem considerations. There's also an FAO ISIS letter of agreement on data-limited assessment methods that also covers non-target species, not just the target ones. The— in terms of the 20,000 tonnes figure, yes, that's consistent with FAO data and information. These fisheries are a small fraction of the global capture fisheries, as you correctly pointed out. But that in a bit reinforces the point made earlier in response of the, of the Krusma paper. So the volume argument does not really support the prohibition, but it does support the case that proper management is— it is feasible at this, at this small scale. And that's where the effort should be put into implement effective management. And I think the— there's one other question related on the destination of the catch. And yes, it goes primarily to developed country markets, which that further complicates in a way the food security framing. But again, it makes the case for stringent management standards as a market access condition, for example, which is exactly what other FAO instruments like the PSMA agreement and catch documentation schemes are after. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the interesting discussion, everybody. And I now have the luxury problem of 5 people wanting to What I will do is that I will take the questions from Spain, Iceland, and Korea, and then— and provided that this can take place in the next 15 minutes at a maximum, I will then cut the list short and take the 2 remaining panellists, and then we will have a discussion.

Thank you.

Then after that, everybody can ask the questions. So please bear with me. Spain, you have the floor. I don't have the number in front of me anymore, but can we— If you could raise your hand, Spain. 643. Yeah, yeah, here we go. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Good morning. I'm Juan Anisa from Spain. I wanted to ask— I see something. The debate is mainly around the effects of trawling on vulnerable marine ecosystems. But is ICES taking into account in this use of the approach, is it taking into account other types of fishing? Because the debate seems to be centering around trawling, but the management measures that are being used are having an impact on other types of fishing and uses. And it's necessary to have very specific criteria and approaches to see how it can affect different ecosystems. So I don't know if other types of fishing have been taken into account in the analysis. Thank you.

Thank you. And please go ahead. Let's cut it short.

Yeah, thank you very much for the question. We certainly are looking at what can be done to look at the effects of other types of gear, particularly static gears on VME. We held one workshop just a few months ago on this topic to look at methodologies for assessing a footprint of static gear. And we have another workshop now scheduled provisionally for October when we'll be looking at the ecological impacts of static gears. The findings of the workshop that's already taken place are that for the areas we're working, there are many deficiencies in the data sources that make it very difficult at present to calculate a footprint for static gear, and the report of that workshop, which the acronym is WKSTGEM— it's an awkward one, but you will find it online— that workshop identified some of the types of data sources that would be necessary to establish a footprint for static gear. So it's actively being considered as part of the benchmark process, but yeah, the data deficiencies are at present an issue for doing that on large spatial scales, although of course there's some important national projects that are looking at this topic.

Thanks very much, and Iceland, you have the floor.

Thank you. And thank you very much to the presenters. It was very interesting presentations that we've listened to. I really appreciate that, and everyone who's been joining in the discussions. I'd like to make a few comments. I think the phrase that has really stood out to me is the one of effective management, and I think that's something that is really worthwhile highlighting. And I think if we look back to how things have developed over the past couple of decades, or even a bit more than that, we've seen us collectively move away from a situation where there wasn't really much effective management when it came to the issues we're discussing here, to a situation where that has been completely changed, and thankfully we have a lot of effective management, but we don't have a perfect situation. But I think the overall sort of main approach that we have in the UNGA resolution has been very useful. It focuses on preventing significant adverse impacts. It avoids going into some blanket statements that bottom fishing can go ahead anywhere without any limitations. Thankfully, we're no longer there. It also moves away from blanket bans of saying just bottom fishing is bad and should not take place anywhere. It needs to be effectively managed. It needs to be limited to areas where it will not cause significant adverse impacts. And I would also like to highlight the point made by FAO that it's not only about the potential significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems. But the sustainability of the fish stocks themselves, the deep sea species, that is an essential item. And I think it was very worthwhile mentioning by FAO that that is a part of the implementation that perhaps has not reached the same levels as others have. I noted the map that Mr. Guterres showed when he was discussing the FAO's VME database. Which shows how limited the areas already are where bottom fishing can be authorized. So I think the advancements there have already been very great. I would also like to highlight the point that was made probably to some extent by all the presenters regarding the high variability, that there is no such thing as treating all areas in the same manner. We need to identify where the risk of significant adverse impacts is the greatest, and we have to recognize that in some areas bottom fishing can take place without causing such significant adverse impacts. So that balance is the task that we have at hand, and I think by and large we have really advanced very significantly in that. And again, I stress that the overall approach in the UNGA resolution is very useful in that context. The last point I would like to make is to simply stress that obviously some parts of the presentations we've listened to here are quite technical, and when it comes to discussions in the context of the UN General Assembly, it's probably not the most knowledgeable technical experts when it comes to the negotiations we're going to have later on that resolution. But it's worthwhile to note that we've heard 2 presentations which were from a very regional perspective, which shows that that is where very important and good technical discussions take place, but also when it comes to the global level, that the FAO plays an essential role when it comes to all the technical aspects of this, and it's important for the UNGA to rely on the expertise of the FAO, and therefore it's very important that the FAO maintain their excellent technical knowledge and that they continue to have very good technical work on moving us forward regarding all of these issues. As I said, we have had great progress, but we don't have a perfect situation, and I think FAO will definitely play a vital role in the continued advance in how we are addressing the impacts of bottom fisheries. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that, Iceland. And I understood that to be a reaction to the discussions we have had so far. So I will proceed directly to giving the floor to our colleague from Korea on mic 646, and also take the opportunity to say thank you to our conference officers. for working with me on managing this choreo. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Moderator. First, let me welcome the convening of this important workshop as we mark the 20th anniversary of General Assembly Resolution 61/105, and I would also like to thank 2 panelists for their informative presentations. I have a quick question about— for Mr. Simon Jennings of ISIS. Although the Northeast Atlantic is not a region Korea is particularly familiar, I found the ISIS presentation very impressive, in particular the expansion of the VMI database from around 15,000 to more than 75,000 records, records, and the increasing inclusion of absence records and the consideration of past bottom fishing impacts demonstrate the value of sustained scientific data collection. As many other regions do not have dedicated scientific organizations comparable to ICES, the scientific committees of the relevant RFMOs often have to perform a similar role. In this regard, I believe the ICES system provides a valuable model from which other RFMOs could draw. So my question is, could you give us a sense of a scale of financial and human resources required to maintain and regularly update such a system? And more importantly, based on ICES' experience, what are the key conditions for establishing and sustaining a similar system in other regions or RFMOs? Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for the kind words about ICES. I'm not really qualified as a representative of ICES to comment on the work that's taking place in other regions. I can say very briefly how ICES operates. We essentially have 19 member countries who make annual contributions to ICES network. That's financial contributions, and that pays for the operation of a secretariat in Copenhagen, and that secretariat is an amazing group of people that orchestrate the activities of over 100 expert groups. About 6,000 scientists or so contribute to those, but the majority of those are all funded by national contributions that the member countries make when sending scientists to ICES, and we also, through collaborations with PICES and things, welcome scientists more widely from across the world, so we're very fortunate that much of our science and some of our advice is informed by experts from outside the Northeast Atlantic region, but it's It's not really for me to say about what happens in other regions. I'm sure there's some excellent work taking place. I'm just not well-sighted on it, but we feel very fortunate as an organization to have the support of our member countries to continue doing this work.

Thank you so much, Simon and Mr. Jennecks. And, and we are on time in terms of the plan I have come up with for, for managing the rest of this morning's session. I do have 3 remaining on my list from the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative and from the ICFA, the, the industry. Please bear with me, I will take your interventions or questions after, but I want to make sure we have ample time for our 2 remaining panelists, so that's what's going to happen now. We will be hearing their presentations. Now, um, we have, uh, our 4th panelist that I would like to give the floor to. Um, that's Ms. Payne. You have the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Moderator. Good morning, delegates and observers. It is really special to be here on this 20th anniversary of the UNGA resolution and to have an opportunity to contribute to this review on behalf of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. So IUCN, just to give you a little perspective on who we are, IUCN has long contributed the expertise of its members and its commissioners to this process, offering scientific, legal, and policy reports and recommendations for the conservation of deep ocean biodiversity. My comments this morning will focus on the work done by IUCN expert commissions and IUCN members' directions embodied in IUCN resolutions. IUCN members remain concerned about the state of VMEs and the sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks, and last fall they called on state members individually and through relevant RFMOs and IFBs to fully implement the General Assembly resolutions on the protection of VMEs. I'll speak to the concerns that led to this new statement, in particular 2 studies, one evaluating the migratory species associated with seamounts that are listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List and an expert elicitation of IUCN Species Survival Commission experts. So IUCN is an international organization. We're a permanent observer to the UN General Assembly with over 1,500 members from over 160 countries, including 209 governments and government agencies. The question we're asking today is, have the measures agreed by, by the members of the United Nations General Assembly been effectively implemented? And just to start, the Third World Ocean Assessment notes the positive increase in seamount studies using novel and integrated approaches and some promising information about closures of sensitive areas, but it also notes increased seamount pressures and impacts including fishing and mining. Although we're here today to discuss just fishing impacts, the warming, deoxygenation, and ocean acidification effects of greenhouse gas pollution exacerbates the environmental harm from other human activities, including fishing. So cumulative impacts must be taken into account, as was explained by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in its recent climate change advisory opinion. Of particular importance to compliance with the UNGA resolutions and other international instruments is that the World Ocean Assessment also finds that despite significant improvements, the understanding of abyssal seamounts, those found within areas beyond national jurisdiction, and connectivity of seamount fauna remains limited. This has important consequences for states seeking to comply with their obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment and to undertake the required assessments to implement that conservation obligation. Moreover, UN General Assembly resolutions refer not just to impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems, but to long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks. Thus, the scope of states' obligations and of this review must consider cumulative impacts of climate change and increased human activities, long-term ocean health, and the limitations on assessment and sound management of ocean ecosystems until we expand our still limited knowledge. It's important to emphasize that Flag state obligations are for sustainability and not sustained yield. For states parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Fish Stocks Agreement, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement, and UN General Assembly resolutions, the fundamental obligation is to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control protect and preserve the marine environment. as stated in UNCLOS Article 192. And the standard is more specifically stated elsewhere. The UNGA resolutions are clear that compliance means protecting habitats and ecosystems, including their associated and dependent species, as we've already heard discussed this morning. The resolutions refer to the serious threat to fish stocks and to marine habitats and ecosystems. 77/118 from 2022 picks up the language from the Convention and from the Fish Stocks Agreement to refer to vulnerable marine ecosystems, including their associated and dependent species. Article 194 of the Convention requires protection and preservation of rare or fragile ecosystems. Article 117 requires states to take measures for their nationals that are necessary for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas, not just target species, not just indicator species. If Article 117 isn't clear enough, Article 119 of the convention requires states to take into consideration the effects on species species associated with or dependent upon harvested species with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such associated or dependent species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened. And the Fish Stocks Agreement echoes this language. Precaution is a principle that the UN General Assembly resolutions call on and that is to be implemented through the ecosystem approach and through assessment. This is one of the studies that I mentioned. It is a global dataset of 344 records across 138 seamounts considering the hotspots for threatened migratory species. It found at least 78 migratory species have been recorded reported on seamounts worldwide and troublingly found that around 72% of migratory species associated with seamounts fall within the threatened categories of the IUCN Red List, highlighting that these habitats play a disproportionately important role in supporting migratory species at risk. This graph shows the breakdown by taxonomic group. For example, 87% of migratory sharks recorded on seamounts are listed in the threatened categories of the Red List. These figures underline the critical conservation importance of seamount habitats for migratory species. And just to mention that established in 1964, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species has evolved to become the world's most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of living creatures, species. Turning to another indicative study, this one is an elicitation of 31 experts from 26 marine species-focused specialist groups of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. The Species Survival Commission is a science-based network of over 11,000 volunteer experts from almost every country in the world whose members contribute to the IUCN Red List. These experts reported that nearly every shark and ray species is threatened by incidental catch and viewed bottom trawls as the fishing gear of the greatest concern. So has there been sufficient progress through the UN processes? IUCN resolutions from 2004 to 2025 suggest not. IUCN Resolution 32 was adopted last fall in October at the World Conservation Congress by an overwhelming majority of IUCN state and non-governmental members. It calls on states to protect VMEs from significant adverse impacts caused by destructive fishing practices including bottom trawling and importantly it calls for a transition away from bottom trawling on seamounts at this bottom fishing review. I'd like to turn for just a couple of minutes to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement. I hope everyone here knows that it came into force this January and that the first conference of the parties will be from January 11th to 22nd, 2027. And there's a great deal of work to be done in the interim on the environmental impact assessment part is now in force. It is effective. And as you know, there are discussions of how the EIA provisions in the BB&J agreement document will work together with other kinds of assessments that are being done under other instruments. But I think the key points here are that consistent with UN General Assembly Resolution 61/105, paragraph 83, it calls for assessment on the basis of the best available scientific information whether individual bottom fishing activities would have significant adverse impacts on VMEs and to ensure that if it is assessed that these activities would have significant adverse impacts, they are managed to prevent such impacts or not authorized to proceed. What do we do when there's insufficient information? I think at a recent science workshop, the comment was made, we're missing a lot of information, but we should recognize that we have a lot of information. When I was a child, we didn't know that there was life in the ocean in the dark zones. So we've come a long way. But we need to consider that the precautionary approach requires that states are more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate. And that activities— now, this is— the next bit is language from the BB&J agreement, environmental impact assessment part, that activities are assessed and conducted to prevent mitigate and manage significant adverse impacts, that parties shall ensure that the potential impacts on the marine environment are assessed. So it's not sufficient to say we don't have the information, therefore let's go ahead and fish. We need the information before that activity can take place. I'm not going to dwell in the interest of time on the ABMT marine protected area element of the BB&J agreement, but of course that will be very helpful for this. And I'd like to close with just a couple of recommendations drawing from IUCN's Resolution 32. So to conclude on the recommendations from IUCN members, They call for this review to transition away from bottom trawling on seamounts to support, generate, share, and collate scientific, technical, and cultural knowledge on the functions and importance of VMEs to facilitate regionally appropriate conservation and to understand their heritage and to make inventories of seamounts that can support their effective protection. I'd also make the comment that having sat in this room for many hours, that we really need to focus on implementing the BB&J agreement, in particular the parts addressing environmental impact assessment, marine protected areas, and capacity building. Thank you so much for your attention.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your presentation, Simi. And I don't think you're the only person in this room excited about the upcoming COP 1 of the BB&J agreement in January. I think many of us are. And that leads me to reminding everyone that we will have a part of the final segment, panel segment tomorrow, dedicated to discussing the interface with the PPNJ agreement. Now, I would like to give the floor to our 5th panelist. Ms. Goddard, you have the floor.

Kia ora koutou. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. It's afternoon now, not morning. I have the privilege to speak to you briefly about a collaborative project from the Tasman Sea, so we're going to take a little dive slightly different to the rest of the panellists. Here we go. After nearly 2 decades of UNGA resolutions and legal obligations that require states and RFMOs to prevent the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems, including seamounts, by identifying and protecting them, there has been limited progress and VMEs remain at risk. SPRIFMO, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, area shown here on the map, is an example of an RFMO where its members have stalled in their implementation of key UNGA resolutions that we've heard about this morning: 6472, 6668, 77118. SPRIFMO has failed to map VMEs before authorising bottom fishing, specifically bottom trawling. SPRIFMO has failed to implement the 2023 consensus-agreed minimum levels of VME spatial protection to date, has no approved framework to identify VMEs, and no VME closures within its bottom fishing footprint to date. VMEs within SPRIFMO Convention remain at risk because bottom trawling on seamounts remains active. Just recently, in 2024, a New Zealand vessel was bottom trawling in the central Lord Howe, and in a single tow exceeded the maximum threshold of deep-sea corals, which triggered the reactionary move-on rule. So this area is temporarily closed while a review is undertaken. Because VMEs within Sprithmo remain at risk, Greenpeace went to sea. We conducted a seamount expedition this time— oh, sorry, in March last year, between Australia and New Zealand in the Tasman. Our focus was to survey seamounts, which are, for those, just a quick reminder, underwater mountains that rise off the benthic sea floor or have an elevation of 100 metres or more. Our first site was the central Lord Howe. This is the site of the 2024, the most recent VME encounter. Here we focused just on single seamount where we had 4 surveys that we had here, which were around the 1,000 metre depth mark. Our second location that we went to was Northwest Challenger. Within this area we had 4 target sites which were 4 seamounts. 3 of them, I can't use the pointer but use your eyes, 3 of them are open to bottom trawling because they're within the hashed box, the bottom trawl management area, and one is currently closed to bottom trawling. So the main objective was to head out to sea, collect high-resolution video footage, and analyse a subset of this footage to identify if there were any VMEs. We applied the Baco et al. expert-based decision framework to identify VMEs from still images. We chose this framework because it is one of the only peer-reviewed published frameworks that operationalises the full 5 internationally agreed VME criteria that we've just heard from in the FAO Deep Sea Guidelines. We wanted to also use this example as a case study specifically for SPRIFMO. A video should play. All right, so apologies for anyone who gets seasick. I did have to speed this footage up. Here is an example of what we saw at the Central Lord Howe site. This is that location of that most recent VME encounter. So we had 94 images from a small subset of footage that we took through this analysis. We identified 350 individual taxons representing 7 of the 13 SPRIFMO VME indicator taxa. That includes your sponges, stony corals, black corals, sea fan corals, anemones, hydrocorals, and some sea lilies, some of which is showing in this footage. Many of the coral and sponge colonies were estimated to be over 100 years old. Overall, we observed a heterogeneous deep sea environment characterised by a mosaic structurally complex patchy habitats which supports a range of sessile and mobile fauna. This footage reinforces just because an area is currently or historically bottom trawled doesn't mean that it's fully a coral graveyard, so to speak. It can still host important VMEs. This next video, this is moving on to the Northwest Challenge at that additional site I just showed you. This is— so this is a different seamount that is also currently open to bottom trawling. This one was pretty unique. These Actinaria anemone gardens, that's the bright orange for those of you looking, stretch for hundreds and hundreds of metres. We observed an abundance community dominated by these extreme high densities of these Actinaria anemones, and they colonise the coral substrate, as you can see, which includes both coral rubble, dead intact coral matrix, and also live intact coral matrix. And we saw some extreme densities, 58 individuals per square metre. Now overall, with this particular area here, it was interesting because it might actually link to the FAO Criteria 1 Which is uniqueness. Regardless, the point was this area is also open to bottom trawling, so remains at risk. OK, last little video here. This footage is also from Northwest Challenger, but it's a different seamount, again open to bottom trawling. All of the seamounts that we surveyed have been trawled, some more heavily than others. But we regularly found these pockets of VME indicator taxa. taxa, highlighting their ecological value. In total, from the small subset of footage from that Northwest Challenger, those 4 sites, we identified over 4,500 individuals from 166 images representing 11 of the 13 sprithmoe viame indicator taxa. So I will be short on time. I won't be able to take you through all of our results, But thankfully we're fully presenting this later in this year at ESC. Our key findings, there was large spatial variation across the seamounts, which is pretty typical of these deep sea benthic ecosystems. At the central Lord Howe sites, remember that's the most recent VME encounter site, of the images that we assessed, 45% of them were classified as VMEs. So the significance of this is that our direct evidence, direct visual evidence, has shown that this area does contain VMEs and should remain closed. And our data represents— we've heard this term a few times this morning— that best available scientific information, which is why we're pushing for it to be actually used by SPRIFMO this year. For Northwest Challenger, 64% of the images we analysed would be considered VMEs, and those were VME— our VME images tended to be higher in fauna density, greater taxon richness, your taller, larger, which sort of equates to older colonies for your sponges and your corals compared with our non-VME images. The take-home message from our results is that all of the seamounts that are open to bottom trawling contained multiple VMS. We know seamounts are ecologically complex, unique ecosystems, and as I mentioned, all of the seamounts that we surveyed have been heavily bottom trawled. We also found significant evidence of coral rubble, trawl scarring, and derelict fishing gear. These were just 2 clips from that Northwest Challenger. The evidence that bottom trawling causes significant adverse impacts is well established in the scientific literature. This map shown here illustrates studies from seamounts across multiple ocean basins which consistently documents evidence of SAIs on seamounts. Reviews of post-trawling research shows persistent ecological damage including the loss of habitat-forming corals and sponges, altered community structure, and long-term habitat degradation. Our own research that we took from the Tasman Sea reinforces these findings, demonstrating that significant adverse impacts are common on seamounts. There is a side event straight after this, at lunchtime which will explore this SAI evidence in a lot more detail, so I do encourage you all to go along, and I hear lunch is provided. So taken together, the available evidence is clear. Seamounts are vulnerable marine ecosystems, bottom trawling causes significant adverse impacts, and a precautionary approach requires protecting these ecosystems before Sorry. Before further damage can occur. So our key recommendations to implement these resolutions: member states and RFMOs must close all seamounts and seamount-like features in areas beyond national jurisdiction to bottom fishing— sorry, to bottom trawling without delay. This is consistent with the precautionary approach that we actually just heard about in the previous presentation, which is relevant under 77, which emphasises the need to ensure that precautionary approach is applied. This would also benefit those associated and dependent species and biodiversity beyond VMEs, which we've also heard about this morning. Secondly, we want to use the best available science information to actually inform where these areas of VMEs are known or likely to to occur. For SPRIFMO, specifically the member state New Zealand, that means using this available data from this expedition before making recommendations in September this year to potentially open up that area I just showed you to bottom trawling. Thirdly, adopt a range of VME identification frameworks that operationalise all 5 not just one of the FAO VME criteria that we've discussed this morning, so including the Bakoatau example that we've used. Lastly, I would say after 20 years of implementation of UNGA resolutions on bottom fishing, VME protection remains incomplete, so we have an opportunity to act here. In particular, RFMOs, as we have seen with SPRIFMO, these member states have failed to act on the best available information to identify and protect VMEs to prevent significant adverse impacts. We must ensure VME protection is within the current mandate of RFMOs because progress has been too slow. It's also important to remember, and again we just heard this, that global governance on the high seas continues to evolve. Examples include the BBNJ Treaty and the CB D30x30 protection targets. States must effectively fulfil their responsibilities in relation to these UNGA resolutions, but also as partners to these RFMOs, the CBD, and now the new BBNJ Treaty. So expeditions, for those of you who have ever been to sea, are not always easy, and they're rather time-consuming and can be quite complicated. So a big thank you to all of the experts and collaborators that have supported this project, and a special thank you to Ali Hooper and Greenpeace for funding this research in the Tasman Sea. Also, thank you to the organisers for allowing us to present this here today. Our full report will be available via the Greenpeace website in due time with our publication that we're working on, and as I mentioned, we will present this in full to the SPRIFMO SC in September. Thank you. Ngā mihi nui. Kia ora.

Thank you so much for that, Katrina, and I'm looking forward to the side event this lunch hour. Now, I thank the 5 panelists for their interesting, thought-provoking presentations, and the floor is now open for questions and comments. We already have a list, in fact. Um, please feel free to, to add yourselves, and we will take as many as we can, but we already have 4 and, and 18 minutes. Now, um, first on the list, on mic number 732, is the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative. You have the floor, please. And everyone try to, to, to limit the number of words and time. Thanks.

Hi, thank you for taking my question. My name is Peter Oster. I'm an emeritus research professor at University of Connecticut and part of the DOSI delegation here today and tomorrow. And maybe I'm not so much asking a question as providing a comment that integrates across the presentations this morning. And this is about the use of precaution, which has just been raised in the last 2 significantly in the last 2 presentations. But the use— the term precaution is raised in multiple resolutions, guidelines, and advice. However, the details for implementing precautionary approaches tend to be silent. And in particular, details on precautionary contributions in decision-making may be implicit in some cases, but ideally, in terms of transparency, should be explicit. The use of precaution in decision-making seems to be antithetical to the concept of mature science, as Dr. Jennings described this morning. An immature science, in fact, may be indicative of uncertainty and could be important for justifying precaution in decision-making. Peer-reviewed science alone should not be categorized into these categories in order to delay the application of precaution. For example, And this is with my— I'm an ecologist, so I'm going to delve into the literature. A study by Bailey, Dave Bailey and colleagues, published in 2009, which I think has been highly underutilized in management arenas, suggests that significant impacts from fishing in the North Sea occurred at depths that exceed the footprint of the actual fishing. And I think that general outcome is important in applications of precaution in all these decision-making forums. Removing fish and fisheries impacts segments of their populations across depths deeper than the fisheries themselves, and inference suggests that based on these results, it's not a heavy lift to apply that to VME species and VMEs overall. In fact, a colleague and I more recently published 2— in my notes here I wrote brilliant papers— but 2 perspective papers that argue that VMEs are not simply the indicators themselves but linked to diverse community of organisms that can extend beyond the footprint of the indicator species. So where we draw lines about where fishing should and should not take place is— should incorporate this concept, at least as alternatives for decision-making. Precautions should be inherent and explicit when existing data remains, quote, immature, but indicates uncertainties can be addressed. For example, in technical aspects in the benchmarking process, and use of existing data in modeling and model performance evaluations, and to include precautionary scenarios for developing management alternatives. This would appear to be consistent with existing UNGA resolutions and international agreements. And I don't require any kind of response if time is limited, but thank you for the opportunity to insert that into the discussion.

Thank you so very much to the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative. Now, I don't actually want to rush everybody, you know, so that we feel we need to speak way too rapidly for the interpreters to— and no, this was my fault actually, and I've been discussing with with secretariat that we, we can let this discussion bleed into the, the afternoon session. So if needed, I will just take a few of the— from the speakers list after. So if some of our panelists have anything they want to respond, then, and then feel, feel welcome. But otherwise, we could proceed with the list, and we now have 4 people wishing to take the floor. First on mic 721, I have the ICFA, the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations. You have the floor.

Yeah, hello. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Ivan Lopez. I am the chair of International Coalition of Fishing Associations. We are an NGO recognized by ECOSOC.

Thank you.

So just as a general comment, and well, I think the questions have been— a lot of them have been answered already that we had. It's— we speak a lot about impacts, and I've heard some comments about it's not damaging to ban fisheries in the high seas, etc. We seem to forget as well when we call for the implementation of BB&J, indeed, of course, The issue of MPAs and impact assessments is very relevant but very much to be developed still. But let's not forget that the title of the treaty also calls for sustainable use of international waters and very much that is the arena where we like to focus. The activity exists. We have impacts. Of course we do have impacts like all producing of food. I for one would like to hear more about the impact of land producing. activities on the water. 80% of the marine litter comes from land. The outwash of fertilizers and other things have tremendous impact and they seem to be completely foregone in this. So if we talk about cumulative impacts of food producing, that is what should be looked into. And also, when we reduce the food production in one area, normally it's increasing somewhere else. So that also has to be taken into account. It is true that a lot of the deep sea fishing goes to so-called developed nations, but it's also true that if you take those away from the nations, they will buy other food somewhere else. I mean, it has been clear that the level of consumption of seafood will not diminish, so there is a collateral effect on that. And the reduction of one source of food in one area doesn't mean that we just stop eating that. It means that it will be substituted and it will be detracted from somewhere else. So if we want to look about the ecosystemetic approach, we have to look at all of this. And that, just to final comment, is when we speak about science in this aspect, very often we only look at the effect of fisheries. But we don't look at collective impact of other activities or even other factors like sea warming, etc. These also have an effect on mortality, not only fisheries. And for us as an industry, the lack of distinction and identification of these factors make it very difficult to have a proper idea of what's going on. And in that sense, I welcome very much the comments from the FAO and from the ICES because that is what we are looking at, but we forget one thing. Often these bodies do not have even the mandate or the authorization by members to look at other effects and other causes of reduction of VMEs, etc. That is an important factor. Second important factor is often the precautionary approach has to be applied because of lack of science, and the lack of science is there because of the lack of scientists and funding for the scientists, and that is very important, especially as we move into the BBNJ, etc. So, I mean, I was going to say there is little reference to the RFMOs, but there was a lot of it in the last 2 presentations, and we have a full panel this afternoon. But they are fundamental keys and fundamental instruments for the application of actual policy at sea, and don't expect different outcomes. It is true that a lot of RFMOs have not been ambitious enough, but it's just a reflection of what their members are voting, and those members are also members of the General Assembly and members of the BBNJ Treaty, and I just— sorry, maybe too pragmatic, but I don't expect a different outcome if you put everything together in one box and take it away from the regional approach. So what I would like to say is that there has been a lot of progress, but we also have to look at why there is no more progress. It's not just because we keep fishing is because we keep not funding the science behind it and the technicalities needed for it. I think this is a very important issue also to be considered. But thank you for the debate and looking forward to the rest of the bottom fishing workshop and a lot of interaction. And I commend the chair for the approach he has done with bringing us down to the bottom of the meeting room and bringing everybody more together is certainly very much welcome. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that and for joining down here. So, we already have 5 still remaining on the list. I would just— without me being tempted to comment in detail on the statements. I just, I would just note that there are many that have mentioned the role of cumulative impacts. You know, you did it, I think Simi did it, several others have the role that cumulative impacts play, you know, climate change, ocean acidification, other stresses than bottom fishing. But next up, I would take Laos on Mike 717. After that, it's Mike 668, um, OJ EGL, the NGO. But, but Laos first, you, you have the floor. Laos on 717. No, I'm not loud still. It's okay. Exactly. Maybe please just then, um, identify yourself.

Okay, sorry.

Yeah, Anita Krajnc, uh, Plant-Based Treaty. Um, I had a question about, uh, today's panel, which I thought was amazing. Uh, David Attenborough, in his, uh, film Ocean, he provided footage of bottom trawling and said it was absolutely devastating and heart-wrenching. And I think it's very important to actually see the footage, and I appreciate the panelists from Greenpeace. And I was wondering, with respect to the impacts, so there's those hidden impacts that are just beginning to see the light and the public seeing it. And also, there was an episode by Climate Question by the BBC where they said that these iron chains that bulldoze across the sea, it looks like a wasteland. And it also releases millennia-old carbon. So it's also having an impact in terms of releasing carbon into the atmosphere. And the question was earlier asked about whether there are alternatives for food security, such as looking at plant-based protein alternatives. And why not take a holistic approach and look at all the different impacts? And don't we have other options here, such as moving towards a plant-based food system?

Thank you so much, and my apologies for the confusion, but not a huge issue, I think, since we're all in this together indeed, as I mentioned previously. Now we have next up on, on mic 668, an NGO referred to as the OJ EGL, and I will do my best because the actual name is in French. It's the Organisation d'Appui aux Jeunes Opérateurs Économiques pour la Gouvernance Locale. You have the floor, please.

Merci beaucoup.

Thank you very much. My name is Ibrahima Fall and I'm the head of the organization Helping Young Economic Operators in Favor of Governance. I'm based in Senegal. The organization is rather based in Senegal. Thank you very much for your excellent presentations on this particularly important topic within the framework of sustainable fisheries. As you know, Senegal is a coastal State, and for us fishing is a very important sector. We are an NGO working to help women who are very important links in the fisheries value chain, and in particular young women, because in Senegal this is a revenue source for over 15% of the population— fisheries is.

Thank you.

and in particular for women and young people. Improper fishing practices in Senegal have a very serious impact on employability and the empowerment of women. The comment I wanted to make is to better guide the analysis of impacts of poor fisheries practices, the impact they have on women's empowerment and youth employment. Because the main consequence of all of this is the scarcity of resources on our countries, and that, of course, has an impact on women's employment, women's revenues. They're the ones then processing the products of fishing. They're working with nutrition, feeding our children, using all of the fish products. And I think that comment is worth noting. We need to do more to analyze improper or poor fishing practices and the impact they have on women's empowerment and youth employment. In Senegal, we're trying to organize, to mobilize in order to build capacity with a view to ensuring that women have greater economic weight. They are often involved in manual processing of fish, fish products. The working conditions are rather tough, so we're trying to assist them and also to raise their awareness about how they can take ownership of sustainable fishing practices so as to promote biodiversity protection and the protection of marine resources. That's That's my comment. Thank you very much for this initiative.

Thank you very much for that important contribution. And you mentioned poor practices and/or sustainable practices and the impacts it can have on, let's say, people's realities, including women and youth. And that, I suppose, all comes down to sustainable management or being able to properly manage the resources the ocean gives us. That's one— another recurring theme here. Thank you. We have next on the list on mic 7, or let's say we have On, yeah, on 6:30 we have— apologies and thanks once again, conference officers— on mic 6:30 we have the delegation of Australia. You have the floor.

Thank you very much. My name's Tiffany Reid-Marshall. I'm a representative from the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and I'd just like to make a I'll make a brief comment and thank the panellists for the wide-ranging presentations and discussions. For me, it resonates very deeply with the view that management of deep sea fisheries is complex, and that's why it's important to adopt a precautionary and science-based management approach at both the state RFMO level and enhance engagement with stakeholders as as well. Around that idea of effective management, it's really about the importance of preventing significant adverse impacts and also to contributing to our shared understanding of the impacts on bottom fisheries, and discussions like today are really critical in that regard. From the Australian perspective, we really have observed significant progress made through the fishery management Organisations that we are involved with, including the South Pacific and the South Indian Ocean as well. Some of the key outcomes have been around quantifying the impact of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and also continuing to refine and develop effective management arrangements. I do, however, note that. Despite the strong focus on implementation, areas of improvement still exist. This includes, but is not limited to in any way, addressing the issue of unregulated and unmanaged bottom fishing practices in the high seas, which can have a really destructive impact on those vulnerable marine ecosystems. But Australia does hold that the impacts of bottom fishing on these ecosystems and on deep fish stocks, deep sea fish stocks, can be managed sustainably. We've seen success through a combination of import controls, output controls, catch limits, and area closures, as well as move-on rules. Equally as important though is the role of data collection and analysis, and critical to that and what hearing today as well is around scientific cooperation across all those fishery management areas and the exchange of data, knowledge, and ideas to build our understanding of deep sea fishery resources and also to inform our management actions. I just want to say a big thank you to the panellists.

Thank you. And— I'm sorry. Thank you very much to the delegation of Australia, and importantly also to our interpreters during this session. You are now dismissed with warm thanks for your service. It's 1 o'clock already, colleagues. So Australia had the famous last words of this session, except for mine, of course. We have concluded segment 1. We will continue. With discussions because I still have 2 speakers on my list. So that will be the first thing at 3 PM. After that, we will begin with our second segment entitled Progress Made by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Arrangements 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 3 resolutions. Now, before concluding, I would like to give the floor to the Secretary of this meeting for an announcement.

Thank you, Madam Moderator. This is just to announce— you've probably already heard— there will be a side event here in this room starting at 1:30. The side event is organized by the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. It is entitled Scientific Evidence of Significant Adverse Impacts on Seamounts and Other Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. I believe there is a lunch before that which will be provided there in the Vienna Cafe area. And other than that, if you have not yet registered for the meeting, there is QR code on the side of the room that you can fill in the form for registration so we have a full account of who's here. Thank you, Madam Moderator.

Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, and again, looking forward to seeing many of you at the side event. Distinguished delegates, we will resume our work at 3 PM sharp. Please be on time, noting that started a few minutes late this morning. That will not be the case this afternoon because we have lots to discuss, as we have seen this morning. I thank you.