(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 Golden.
That's a 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 slash 109 of December 2025, the General Assembly recalled its decision in paragraph 2,223 of Resolution 77 slash 118 of nine December 2022 to conduct in 2026, a further review of the actions taken by states and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements in response to paragraphs related bottom fishing of resolution 64 slash 72, resolution 66 slash 68, and Resolution 77 slash 118 with a view to ensuring the effective implementation of the measures therein and to make further recommendations where necessary, and to proceed that review with a two 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 the 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.
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, 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 two 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 two days to ensure that we make the most of the limited time available to us.
I really encourage all of you to interact wherever reason brings you here.
We are in this together, let's remember.
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 be counted as sides.
I used to be based here in New York for four years as the ocean and lo 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 ecosystem aspects, for instance.
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.
That's it from me as the moderator, but just again, I'm incredibly honored to get to do this and we will have a good time.
You can consider me as your talk show hosts.
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 Office 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 Excellency, Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of miss Alearmskild, Under Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Council.
It is my pleasure to address this year, General Assembly workshop on the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long sustainability of deep sea fish stocks.
Will recall that the present workshop, which is organized pursuant to the request of the Regal Assembly in Resolution 77 slash 118, it's 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 slash 72 66 slash 68, and 77 slash 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 three points.
First, the 20th anniversary of the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 61 slash 105 in 2006 presents an important opportunity to take stock of the important role of 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 slash 105 was a Borshit 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 slash 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 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, these 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 an inspiration for the provisions of the 2023 Agreement under the United Nations Convention 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.
Madam Madam 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 fishery situation and aquaculture in 2026 indicates that global fish stocks continue to decline 37.6% of stocks being now considered as over exploited or overfished.
These stocks enduring a 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 league 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 Common Moral 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 two 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 GAM.
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 are relevant together with intergovernmental and non governmental organizations.
Including environmental organizations and representatives of industry.
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 USG's report, which was prepared on the basis of information received from member states, S and Regional Fisheries Management Organization, organizations and arrangements.
The preliminary version of that report is available on the DoLS 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.
I put these next two days to good news for interesting and informative discussions.
I wish also on behalf of Mr.
L Hamsied, the Unstary for Legal Affairs, a successful workshop.
Thank you, Madam Madrid.
Thank you so much, Vladimir and it is good to be back with you and other colleagues.
Thank you for your multilingual statement.
I'll have to teach you a few words in Icelandic before the next meeting.
Now, I would like to thank the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the love to see Mr.
Vladimir Yares 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 Do Allos.
The provisional agenda of the workshop, the provisional organization of work for the workshop, advance 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 64 72, resolution 66 68, 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 slash 72, 66 slash 78, and 77 slash 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 side of the room.
Electronic copies of the presentations made by panelists will also be made available on the website of Dos 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, online observers will not be able to intervene in the meeting, but will be able to benefit from our discussions.
Please share the link with everybody who might be interested but could not make it here.
Now panelists with prerecorded 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.
We'll try to do our very best to include them because there are some who would very much have wanted to be here and could not.
Now, distinguished participants, let's move on and turn to the adoption of the agenda for our meeting.
The proposed agenda consists of six items, namely, one, opening of the workshop, two, adoption of the agenda, three, adoption of the organization of work, four panel segments, one to five, five, summary segment, and six, closing of the workshop.
May I take it 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 one entitled Impacts of bottom fisheries on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks.
This afternoon, we will begin with Segment two entitled, Progress made by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and arrangements in Adré 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 slash 72, 66 slash 68, and 77 slash 118.
Tomorrow morning, 14th July, we will begin with Segment three entitled, Progress made by states in Adré the impasse 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 three resolution, let's call them.
Then we will proceed to Segment four 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 the three resolutions.
Tomorrow afternoon, we would continue our discussions with segment five entitled Opportunities and Challenges in F Adré 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 6:00 P.M.
We would conclude our work with a half hour closing segment.
The segment will be an opportunity for participants to identify and highlight some of the main points that 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 attended for reference purposes only and not as a record of our discussions.
The summary will be prepared after the workshop and placed on the Dallas 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 advance and unedited draft prior to its finalization.
Once finalized, it will 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 we made over the course of the next two days.
In preparing the organizational 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 two to five will be pre recorded.
The panelists 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, we will have them with us not only in spirit, but if you're lucky, also online 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 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.
We would encourage all delegations from member states, intergovernmental, and non governmental organizations to actively participate.
This can also be to ask questions obviously to the panelists or wherever you will have on your mind after the panelists have made their presentations.
Now, importantly, we might have you stand up right now and do a little exercise.
Maybe not yoga, together with Secretariat, I have come up with the plan.
To ask the conference officers to remove the delegation names from the seats during the discussion panel segments.
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 floor so that they are also closer.
I will explain better shortly, 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.
I 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 used to sitting behind our country name.
This is just to underline that we are all in this together and we can identify ourselves as our country or RFMO wherever we are from.
If we take the floor, then that would be important for the conference officers and those taking notes to know who is speaking.
Okay.
Let's give this a minute or two.
Thank you.
While you take your seats, I will introduce our panelists.
I will introduce the panelists 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.
Okay.
Mr.
Gutierrez Gutierrez.
Let's see.
All right.
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, 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 I don't know if we want to separate the IGOs and the NGOs, we can.
Well, if we want to complicate things a little further, we could place the international government organizations in the second last row Yeah.
We on this side.
But I don't think it's a huge issue.
Take your seat wherever you find a comfortable seat.
But the main lines are that the state representatives are in the front and others will have their backs, IGOs, and if I'm forgetting, somebody.
All right.
Okay.
This is starting to look nice because this is a huge conference room.
We really wanted to reinforce the sentiment that we're all in this together.
Yeah, I was going to say, you we do.
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you want me to move it? Yeah, please do.
All right.
All right.
Everyone.
I hope you met new friends already and have found a nice seat.
This is a nicer way of starting this discussion, I think, and thank you for your flexibility here.
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 one will provide scientific information on vulnerable marine ecosystems and deep sea fish stocks, and the impacts of bottom fishing practices and on these ecosystems and the long term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks.
We will have five presentations under this segment and in order to facilitate a dynamic exchange of views, we will hear from the first three of our panelists before having an initial exchange of views.
Thereafter, we will hear from the second set of panelists, followed by an interactive discussion with all five panelists.
The following panelists will participate in this segment.
Mr.
Nicholas 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 two, we have Mr.
Simon Jennings, Vice Chair of the Advisory Committee International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, for short ICIS.
The title of his presentation is ICIS advice on VME Bottom Fishing Impacts and Deep Sea Fish stocks.
Thirdly, we will have miss Alan Kentington, Senior Benthic ecologist in the Department of Fisheries and Ocean 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 miss Simy Pane, 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 Sea mounts and vulnerable marine ecosystems from destructive practices.
Last but not least, miss Quantrina Goddard, Marine scientist and lecturer at Tai Tokarau Maga, North Tech Polytechnic.
The title of her presentation is Identification of VMEse in the South Pacific, Turning Science into policy and implementing Aga resolutions.
I now wish to give the floor to our first three panelists under segment one.
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 be 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 two decades, supported by legal frameworks, guidelines, and also an evidence based.
Let me start with a word on FEL position and mission because it will shape everything that I will say today.
FEL works to maximize food and nutrition security and eradicate poverty while maintaining impacts on the environment to acceptable levels.
These are not competing objectives.
They are in a way, what FO calls the four betters, better production, better nutrition, better environment, a better life for all, leaving no one behind and effective fisheries management as outlined by FAO Blue Transformation roadmap can in fact address these four betters.
I mentioned 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 frames.
Deep sea species are uniquely vulnerable, slow growing, late maturing, unable to recover quickly.
One of the most studied example is orange troughy, including in parts of New Zealand, Australia, and the Noreast Atlantic catches declined sharply after initial depletion, 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 is precisely for this reason that the deep sea fisheries guidelines were designed to ensure bottom fishing is conducted within a framework that prevent 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 on bottom fishing on vulnerable ecosystems.
The DSF guidelines, as you probably know established two legally distinct but operationally inseparable obligations.
Track one, 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 two, ensure the long term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks through rigorous stock assessment, reference points, and long term management plans.
Both drugs 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 one fifth or what it was in 2000.
Today, more than 80% of the deep sea areas in areas beyond national jurisdictions are close 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.
The closures and footprint I just described do not emerge from political negotiations alone.
They require a scientific foundation.
This is what these slides convence.
FAO maintains the global VME database, which provides the evidence base for VME identification and informs closure decisions by RFMOs worldwide.
The database maps the distributions of VME 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, FOO completed the first comprehensive review of the deep sea fisheries guidelines implementation 15 years after their adoption, and the findings are mixed on track one on VME protection.
The review documents what he calls a transformational change, as we have seen also in the previous slides.
All seven 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 two, fish stock sustainability, the picture is unfortunately weaker.
36% of the AB andJ 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 defensive stock status figures available up to.
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 assessment more geographically representative.
The methodology also incorporated a more participatory process, engaging more than 600 scientists from member states and RMO bodies, directly involved in validating stock status determination for their respective areas.
The result is a dis aggregated region by region and management body by 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 Kamilar whose exceptional performance skews the aggregate figure upward.
The picture is a bit more sobering, 38% are sustainable flee 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, F 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 Kamilar, 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 develop from an fish 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 embeded in the founding convention itself.
But the K antarctic toothfish may not be the only successful case and the common threat 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 again on good quality data and science based, properly monitor and comply with.
Which brings me to an important question.
Can bottom fisheries, including bottom trawling be sustainable? 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.
Ear 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 its income and it's also happening across large and small scale fisheries.
Any limitations on bottom fishing must therefore assess its impact on food access and nutrition, not only on habitats.
Bands and blanket restrictions recognizes the policy appeal of simple rules, but the data are clear.
For example, bycatch ratios in both fisheries range 3-90% and disc rate 24-70%.
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 MPA, it's worth recalling what I showed in my previous slides.
More than 80% of the deep sea areas in AB and J are currently close to bottom fishing and functions as de facto marine protected areas.
In fact, only around 2.6% of the ABNJs actually fished by bottom count gears.
That context matters when evaluating calls for further spatial restrictions.
NPAs are, of course, a valuable tool, but the evidence suggests that 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 lifecycle costs must be weighted and FAO for betters frameworks require us to look at the whole picture in a multidimensional matter.
What is FAO doing? A few examples through the Jeff funded Com Oceans Deep Sea Fisheries Project, FAO is working directly with all seven 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 two work that the 15 year review identify as the priority gap.
FOO is supporting these practical transitions, better data and better science, more effective management, and stronger governance.
However, FOO cannot do this alone.
Of course, members, development agencies, industry, NGOs, civil society organizations must work together.
Let me close with four messages.
The DSF guidelines are the reference stand.
Again, adopted in 2008, reviewed in 2024.
They provide internationally agreed criteria for VME identification, significant adverse impact assessment, and fisheries management.
They remain the governing framework, including in the context of the BBNJment.
RFMOs have made real significant progress on VME protection.
The transformational change on Track one, closures, footprints, move on rules, and counter protocols deserves acknowledgment.
F stock sustainability is the unfinished agenda.
Stock assessment, science based reference points, and long term management plans remained insufficiently implemented.
This is where the effort must now be concentrated.
Effective management, not gear type alone, it's what prevents harm and ensure sustainability.
For bottom fishering, the test is outcome based, not gear based, where impact assessment showed that significant adverse impact on VME can be prevented, fishing can proceed.
For deep sea fish stocks, the tool exist again, stock assessment, reference points, harvest strategies.
The task is to strengthen the efforts to implement them.
Kalar has proved both are achievable together.
Thank you very much FO stands ready to support this process with technical expertise, data, and the normative frameworks the member states required.
Of course, I'm happy to take any questions, I guess, after the other two panelists.
Thank you very much.
I think, Mr.
Gutierrez, for his presentation.
We are off to a good start.
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.
We give advice in response to requests from governments and intergovernmental organizations.
Much of our work links to the resolution 64 72, 66 68, and 70 7118 that were mentioned already this morning, particularly the scientific and technical aspects, given our remit as ICs.
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 phishing activity.
We also give a range of advice which we call special request advice, particularly to NAF as their science advisors.
This addresses the appropriateness and effectiveness of management measures to protect VMEs and also development of the ecosystem approach.
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 ICS is underpinned by three 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 AJ and with via me occurrence within EE Ds, and there's a formalized process by which that data is gathered and quality assured by our data center and by the ICE's working group on Deepwater 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 on these 0.05 by 0.05 latitude, longitude sea squares.
Again, this data goes through a formalized process of data assimilation and quality assurance that's led by the working group on spatial fisheries data and our data center.
We also assimilate data directly from NAF as a data submission.
Then finally, and particularly important are the experts that contribute to ICE's 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.
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.
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.
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 and these are particularly important for predictive habitat modeling 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, it would have been two cycles ago of these UNGA meetings till today when we have just over 75,000 records, including, as you can see, a number of absence records.
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.
Although we primarily draw on three or four groups to do this work, Um, we can draw on groups across the network of 100 plus 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 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.
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 emphasize is a focus on the best available science, applying fair data principles, ensuring we have peer review and agreement by consensus.
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 E eds of the different countries.
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, and 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 two ways to either produce what we call VME polygons at the scale of these 0.05 by 0.05 C squares or it's used directly for mapping of the C squares where VMEs occur and are likely to occur.
So in terms of the advice that we give within the EZ ds, we classify the polygons based on this high, medium or low VMED index or the presence of VME habitat.
We have a series of processes that allow us to take these C squares that have these different designations and to form polygons from those where we indicate that VMEs occur or are likely to occur.
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 emphasize in relation to the significant adverse impacts on VMEs is that a number of these methodologies take account of past impacts on VMEs.
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.
That feeds through under three 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.
Also for NAF 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.
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 benchmark 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 now in 2027, we're conducting a benchmark to assimilate these and the benchmark is going to take account of very wide ranging feedback we've received on 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.
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.
The six areas we're working on firstly to review historical data in the VME database that's now completed and a small number of updates have been made to the database I described.
We're working to make the analysis significantly more transparent.
In practice, this means putting all the code on what we call the IC's Transparent assessment framework so that other scientists can see and follow the approaches we take.
We're conducting two workshops on the impacts of static gear on the seabed.
One has already taken place and one is scheduled for later this year.
We've just last year completed a second workshop on predictive habitat modeling, 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 longitudinal dependence of the C square 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 three decades or so and we've been doing two 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.
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.
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.
Okay.
I thank Mr.
Jennings for his presentation, and I now wish to give the floor to our third panelist.
Miss Kentington unfortunately was not able to be here today due to health issues.
Temporary ones, I would add.
But she has instead provided us a pre recorded presentation, which I will now ask the Secretariat to for the opportunity to noting that Ktington is online as far as I know, 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 two decades since international policy for sustainable fisheries has called for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems from the harmful effects of bottom content fishing.
In that time, significant progress has been made on their identification, distribution, ecosystem role, and protection.
Since the last bottom phishing workshop, two 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 deep water 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 bubble gum 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 reffusia or areas where environmental conditions are predicted to remain unchanged in future can help in identifying areas where VME are likely to better survive.
Areas in green identify the climate refusia for the bb gum 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 had been undertaken to assess and prioritize climate induced impacts.
A suite of ocean model products from 22 CMP six 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 four time periods under each of four 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 century.
The dominant species in the Nap study area is called Soropathsrtica, shown on the right.
This is a large coral found from the Tale of Grand Bank and Flemish Cap, north of Greenland and the Mid Atlantic Ridge.
Species distribution modeling shows the climate sia for the black coral in gray and areas of univariate extrapolation causing novel environments in orange for the reference period and the four successive time periods to the end of century under SSP 24.5, 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 refusia in gray over time.
Climate regia and P one are shown in yellow in relation to the black coral VME shown by red polygons and the closed area shown in blue outline.
The largest VMEs are labeled in order of their size on the left panel.
Three of the four largest VMEs are in climate refsia in the near term as shown by the green coloring.
W one, BC four will experience a novel environment with unknown consequences.
Overlaying the closures on the right panel shows that all but BC four have partial protection under the present day closures with BC two the best protected.
Such overlays can be useful in discussing management options to improve conservation effectiveness.
By mid century, there are two large VME areas on a 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 P one and P two are primarily the minimum bottom temperature and the mean mixed layer depth in summer.
Depth is a static variable and it doesn't change.
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 ten of the 64 possible links being realized, reflecting both those strong bottom currents and the very short larval duration of the black coral.
The three largest VME BC one, BC two, and BC three occurred on Flemish cap.
Of these, BC one had the highest connectance linking to BC two and BC four.
W BC one and BC two also connected with each other.
All four of the largest VMEs showed self loops indicating larval retention and therefore the potential for self recruitment.
Simulations indicated that removal of BC one would have the strongest effect on the natural conitivity network, followed by removal of BC three.
Areas such as BC one and BC two may warrant particular attention because of the conitivity properties and location relative to climate phasia.
To summarize, present day conservation areas close to bottom contact fishing may remain relevant in the near term, especially on Flemish cap, but their effectiveness as climate refuge 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 re evaluation.
For black corals in NAFO, areas such as BC one and BC two may warrant particular attention because they combine present ecological significance, relative persistence of analog conditions in the short to medium term, and an important role in normal 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 Wages.
I would like to leave you with this key message.
End of century conservation, which is relevant to long lived cesse marine species such as many VME indicators, depends on protection of environmentally analogous and connected areas.
Thank you very much for your time today.
I would like to ask the Secretariat to convey our thanks to miss Kentington 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 three presentations.
Are there any delegations that wish to take the floor at this date? It doesn't have to be the states.
Obviously, it can be anyone and I see somebody over there.
Please just ask the button.
Please introduce yourself.
Thank you.
No.
Great.
Thank you so much.
This is doctor Kimmy Cushman from Plant based Treaty Scientific Advisor.
I had a question for Mr.
Gutierrez 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 that sustainability takes into account all 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.
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.
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 wild 75% of agricultural land.
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 like to respond, please? Yes, thank you very much for your question.
In terms of the Antarctic 23 for Kamar, indeed, the assessments for all fisheries within the Cala area, consider the impact from bycatch of all species, including ETP species, and also the ecosystem based management is embedded into the Kala 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 that say 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 a based on on on the fact that that that sorry, in a way, I got confused here, but so in a way, the whole the whole life cycle of food production needs to be considered both in land and marine.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Guterres and to the person taking the floor, I didn't get the name, but just thank you very much for being brave enough to be the first person on the floor to to the mic.
Yes.
We have somebody asking for the floor.
I believe I saw you behind the channel signed previously, but please identify yourself.
Thank you very much.
Hey.
Thank you, moderator.
I'm from China.
My name is Su.
I'd like to thank the panelists for the 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? My question goes to ISIS.
I just heard that in your presentation, you mentioned the best available science many times.
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.
As a follow up, two 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? 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.
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.
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.
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 two 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.
Then the other filter is that it would be scrutinized by the 90 member countries of our advisory committee.
And they of course, draw on their own networks of experts.
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 ICs 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.
We take stakeholder information very seriously in terms of allowing us to focus scientific work that we conduct.
For example, if stakeholders identify errors in 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 two more speakers, at least in the line of speakers.
First, on mic 734, we have the Deep Ocean Stewardship initiative.
You have the floor.
Thank you.
Hello everyone.
My name is doctor Amy Boko 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.
Um, so to me, that means that this peer reviewed conclusion leaves open the option for bans for specific high seas habitats, for example, sea mounts 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 was that for Mr.
Guterres, 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 20 high seas could incur.
So it's about assessing the real impact of a particular bottom fisheries.
And assess that in the context again of food security and livelihoods.
In fact, there are many 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 bot controlling or bottom fisheries in the high seas, that is a different story.
Again, as I mentioned before, we need to weigh the environmental cost versus default 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.
Yes.
Japan is on 638.
Thank you.
Good morning to everybody.
Thank you very much for the presentation.
I have one question to Mr.
Jennings with a technical one, during the presentation, I think you mentioned about the B indicators and the indicator says high medium low.
I'd like to know how the ICs identify the high medium low.
Because saying high medium low is very easy, but it's a little bit difficult how high is high.
I'd like to know your criteria to identify the high medium low.
This is a question to you.
I have one comment on the previous speakers.
As I mentioned, there is importance for food security, but also there is importance to collect data from the fisheries.
And also the number, perhaps the amount of the catch is very small in the high seas compared with other area, but there is a fisheries.
If there is a fisheries, there are many people depends on the fisheries.
So for instance, in just one vessel is operating in high sea sea mound area, but just one vessel provides the fisheries product to their town, then there are so many processing factories depends on that catch.
So that is the A is a matter, but sometimes amount doesn't matter for talking about the importance of beneficeries.
This is just a comment, but I have a question to Mr.
Jennings.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for the question about the VME indicator and the development of the VME index.
There are two 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 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 model, 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.
Thank you for the question.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Jennings.
On my list I have next on Mike 725, the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, you have the floor.
Yeah.
Thank you, miss moderator, Matthew Gianni from the Deep Se Conservation Coalition.
Two questions, one for ICEs for Simon Jennings and one for FAO, Mr.
Guterres.
With respect to the habitat suitability modeling that you mentioned, this is something that ICEs has been discussing for at least since 2013, from what I recall.
Um, and I'm wondering when would you expect to or think, if you could predict this as to when that modeling would be used? And I say this in the context of as I understand it, that ICS makes no recommendations on whether there is a VME or not a VME, high, medium, low, or whatever, on the C squares on the areas where there is actually no data, but which, of course, could be fished.
Um, given the depth of the bottom in those areas.
That's been for us, at least a challenge in terms of the ICE's advice, both in AB and J 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 independent species, not just BME indicator species, as well as biodiversity beyond beyond VMEs and also calls for increased understanding of connectivity within and amongst VE vulnerable marine ecosystems including their associated independent species.
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 ICE uses, basically advises that there's probably no BME left or VME species left worth protecting.
A is ICEs looking at VME climate refugia.
Again, this is in paragraph 218 of Resolution 77118 adopted in 2022.
And if I may, the question to the FAO is similar, Mr.
Gutierrez, are you looking at is the FAA looking potentially at assessing how to assess impacts or evaluate the impacts of VM bottom fishing on associated dependent species, and not just VME indicator species as well as biodiversity beyond vulnerable marine ecosystems? And again, this is, as I mentioned in the question to Mr.
Jennings, an element of the Resolution 77118, paragraphs 2 11 through 213.
And then just to follow from the question or the comment from DC, we did an assessment in 2021 of actually how much fish is coming off of bottom trough fisheries in areas beyond their national jurisdiction on sea mounts and associated features.
And we came up with a figure, roughly speaking, about 20,000 tons, which is, of course, a small fraction of the 80 million tons of marine capture fisheries in marine capture fisheries.
And I'm just wondering if again, whether that the the products from those trawl fisheries were going primarily to the US, Europe and Japan.
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.
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 four speakers asking to take the floor and make statements or questions to the three first panelists.
I will cut the list short after those four 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 two panelists and for discussions with them.
First, I would take on mic 643 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 two questions, Mr.
Jennis 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 NAF 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 SRF mow 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 refugee Um, 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.
Again, it will be a case of the maturity of that science and its applicability across the whole region we advise on, both Northeast Atlantic, AB and J, but also within EU marine waters and whether there is science that can be used on that scale.
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 F is implementing.
Actually, the work program explicitly covers bycatch species, including deep water sharks, VME indicator species and other ecosystem considerations.
There's also an FAO ICS letter of agreement.
On data limited assessment methods that also covers non target species, not just the target ones.
In terms of the 20,000 tons 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 Crouse ma paper.
The volume argument does not really support the prohibition, but it does support the case that proper management, it is feasible at this small scale, and that's where the effort should be put into implement effective management.
I think there's another question related on the destination of the catch.
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 know how the luxury problem of five people wanting to take the floor.
What I will do is that I will take the questions from Spain, Iceland, and Korea, and then provided that this can take place in the next 15 minutes at a maximum, I will cut the list short and take the two remaining panelists.
Then after that, everybody can ask the questions, please bear with me.
Spain, you have the floor.
You're welcome.
I don't have the number in front of me anymore, but if you could raise your hand 643.
Here we go.
Can you hear me now? Yes.
Good morning.
I'm usa from Spain.
I wanted to ask I see something.
The debate is mainly around the effects of trawling on vulnerable marine ecosystems.
But is ICIS 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 approaches to see how it can affect a different ecosystem.
I don't know if other types of fish have been taken account in the analysis.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please go ahead.
Let's cut it short.
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.
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 WKTGm, 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.
It's actively being considered as part of the benchmark process, but the data deficiencies are present an issue for doing that on large spatial scales, although, of course, there are some important national projects that are looking at this topic.
Thanks very much.
Iceland, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Thank you very much to the presenters.
It was very interesting presentations that we've listened to.
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.
I think that's something that is really worthwhile highlighting.
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.
Thankfully, we have a lot of effective management, but we don't have a perfect situation.
But I think the overall main approach that we have in the UNGA resolution has been very useful.
It focuses on preventing significant adverse impacts.
It voids going into some blanket statements that bottom fishing can go ahead anywhere without any limitations.
We 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 impact on ecosystems.
But the sustainability of the fish stocks themselves, the deep sea species, that is an essential item.
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 BME database, which shows how limited the areas already are where bottom fishing can be authorized.
I think the advancements 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, there is no such thing as treating all areas in the same manner.
We need to identify where the risk of significant adverse impact is the greatest, and we have to recognize that in some areas, bottom fishing can take place without causing such significant adverse impacts.
That balance is the task that we have at hand.
I think by and large, we have really advanced very significantly in that.
And Again, I stress that the overall approach in the UN 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, is 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 two 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 important 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.
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 Korea.
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 slash 105.
And I would also like to thank two panelists for their informative presentations.
I have a quick question for Mr.
Simon Jennings of ICIS.
Although the Northeast Atlantic is not a region, Korea is particularly familiar.
I found the I found the ICIS presentation very impressive, in particular, the expansion of the VME database base from around 15,000 to more than 75,000 records and the increasing inclusion of absence records and consideration of past bottom fishing impacts demonstrate value of sustained scientific data collection.
As many other regions do not have a dedicated scientific organization comparable to ISIS, the scientific committees of the relevant RFMOs often have to perform a similar role.
In this regard, I believe that ICIS system provides valuable model from which other RFMOs could draw.
So my question is, could you give us a sense of the scale of financial and human resources required to maintain and regularly update such a system.
And more importantly, based on ICE's experience, what are the key conditions for establishing and sustaining a similar system in other regions or RFMOs? 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 our network.
That's financial contributions and that pays for the operation of a Secretariat in Copenhagen.
That Secretariat is an amazing group of people that orchestrate the activities of over 100 expert groups.
About 6,000 scientists or contribute to those, but the majority of those are all funded by national contributions that the member countries make when sending scientists to ICEs.
We also through collaborations with PCs and things welcome scientists more widely from across the world.
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 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 cited on it.
But we feel very fortunate as an organization to have the support of our member countries to continue doing this work All.
Thank you so much, someone, Mr.
Jennings.
We are on time in terms of the plan I have come up with for managing the rest of this morning session.
I do have three remaining on my list from the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative and from the ICFA the industry.
Please bear with me.
I will take your interventions or questions after, but I do want to make sure we have ample time for our two remaining panelists.
That's what's going to happen now.
We will be hearing their presentations.
Now, we have our fourth panelist that I would like to give the floor to.
That's miss Payne.
You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Moderator.
Good morning, delegates and observers.
It is really special to be here on this 20th anniversary of the Uga resolution and to have an opportunity to contribute to this review on behalf of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
IN, just to give you a little perspective on who we are, ICN 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 ICN Expert Commissions and ICN members directions embodied in IUCN resolutions.
I see members remain concerned about the state of Viemese and the sustainability of deep sea fish stocks.
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 Viemese.
I'll speak to the concerns that led to this new statement, in particular, two studies, one evaluating the migratory species associated with sea mounts that are listed as threatened on the ICN redlist and an expert elicitation of Ian Species Survival Commission experts.
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 the members of the United Nations General Assembly been effectively implemented? Just to start, the Third World Ocean Assessment notes the positive increase in seam out studies using novel and integrated approaches.
So promising information about closures of sensitive areas.
But it also notes increased seam out pressures and impacts, including fishing and mining.
Although we're here today to discuss fishing impacts, the warming, deoxygenation, and ocean acidification effects of greenhouse gas pollution exacerbates the environmental harm from other human activities, including fishing.
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 UGA resolutions and other international instruments is that the World Ocean Assessment also finds that despite significant improvements, the understanding of abyssal sea mounts, 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 Enclose Article 1 92.
The standard is more specifically stated elsewhere.
The UGA resolutions are clear that compliance means protecting habitats and ecosystems, including their associated in 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.
77118 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 1 94 of the Convention requires protection and preservation of rare or fragile ecosystems.
Article 1 17 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 1 17 isn't clear enough, Article 1 19 of the Convention requires states to take into consideration the effects on species associated with or dependent upon harvested species with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such associated or dependent species above levels 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 sea mounts, considering the hotspots for threatened migratory species.
It found at least 78 migratory species have been recorded on sea mounts worldwide and troublingly found that around 72% of migratory species associated with sea mounts fall within the threatened categories of the Can red list, highlighting that these habitats play a disproportionately important role and supporting migratory species at risk.
This graph shows the breakdown by taxonomic group.
For example, 87% of migratory sharks recorded on sea mounts are listed in the threatened categories of the red list.
These figures underline the critical conservation importance of seam mount habitats for migratory species.
And just to mention that established in 1964, the Ian 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 solicitation of 31 experts from 26 marine species focused specialist groups of the ICN 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 ICN red list.
These experts reported that nearly every shark and race species is threatened by incidental catch and viewed bottom trolls as the fishing gear of the greatest concern.
Has there been sufficient progress through the UN processes? IUCN resolutions 2004-2025 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 VMEse from significant adverse impacts caused by destructive fishing practices including bottom trawling.
Importantly, it calls for a transition away from bottom trawling on sea mounts 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 11 to 2022, 2027.
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 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 60 1105 paragraph 83 A, it calls for assessment on the basis of the best available scientific information whether individual bottom fishing activities would have significant adverse impacts on VMEse 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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
I'd like to close with just a couple of recommendations drawing from IUCN resolution 32.
So to conclude on the recommendations from IUCN members, they call for this review to transition away from bottom trawling on sea mounts, 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 sea mounts 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 PB&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 so much for your presentation, Simy.
I don't think you're the only person in this room excited about the upcoming Cp one of the BBNJ agreement in January.
I think many of us are and that leads me to reminding everyone that we will have a part of the panel segment tomorrow dedicated to discussing the interface with the BBNJ agreement.
Now, I would like to give the floor to our fifth panelist.
Miss Goddart, you have the floor.
We're on one side too.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon.
Afternoon now, not morning.
I have the privilege to speak to you briefly about a collaborative project from the Tasman Sea.
We're going to take a little dive slightly different to the rest of the panelists.
Here we go.
After nearly two decades of anger resolutions and legal obligations that require states and RFMOs to prevent the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems, including sea males, by identifying and protecting them, there has been limited progress and VMEs remain at risk.
SprthM, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization, area shown here on the map, is an example of an RFMO where its members have stalled in their implementation of key AGA resolutions that we've heard about this morning, 64 72, 66 68, 77.118.
SprifM has failed to map VMEs before authorizing bottom fishing, specifically bottom trawling.
SprifM 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 SprifM convention remain at risk because bottom trawling on sea mounts 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.
This area is temporarily closed while a review is undertaken.
Because VMEs within Sprimo remain at risk, Greenpeeace went to sea.
We conducted a sea mount expedition, March last year between Australia and New Zealand and the Tasman.
Our focus was to survey sea mounts, which are, just a quick reminder, underwater mountains that rise off the Bentic sea floor or have an elevation of 100 meters 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 a single se out where we had four surveys that we had here, which were around the 100 meter depth mark.
Our second location that we went to was Northwest Challenger.
Within this area, we had four target sites, which were four C mounts.
Three of them, I can't use the pointer, but use your eyes, three of them are open to bottom trawling because they're within the hashed box, the bottom fall management area, and one is currently closed to bottom trawling.
All.
So the main objective was to head out to see collect high resolution video footage and analyze a subset of this footage to identify if there were any VMEs.
We applied the backo at our 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 operationalizes the full five internationally agreed VME criteria that we've just heard from in the FAO DC guidelines.
We wanted to also use this example as a case study specifically for SprifM.
A video should play.
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 Loud House 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 seven of the 13 spruf mo VME indicator taxa.
That includes your sponges, stony corals, black corals, sea fan corals, anemones, hydrocrals 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 characterized by a mosaic of structurally complex patchy habitats, which supports a range of sesle and mobile fauna.
This footage reinforces just because an area is currently or historically bottom draw doesn't mean that it's fully a coral graveyard, so to speak.
It can still host important be mas.
This next video This is moving on to the Northwest Challenger, that additional site I just showed you.
This is a different seam out that is also currently open to bottom falling.
This one was pretty unique.
These actinaria anne gardens, that's the bright orange for those of you looking, stretch for hundreds and hundreds of meters.
We observed an abundance community dominated by these extreme high densities of these actinaria annes and they colonized the coral substrate, as you can see, which includes both coral rubble, dead intact coral matrix, and also live intact coral matrix.
We saw some extreme densities, 58 individuals per square meters.
Now, overall, with this particular area here, it was interesting because it might actually link to the FAO criteria one, which is uniqueness.
Regardless, the point was this area is also open to bottom trawling and remains at risk.
Last little video here.
This footage is also from Northwest Challenger, but it's a different se amount, again, open to bottom trawing.
All of the same amounts that we surveyed have been trawed some more heavily than others, but we regularly found these pockets of VMI Indicator taxa, highlighting their ecological value.
In total, from the small subset of footage from that Northwest challenger, those four sites, we identified over 4,500 individuals from 166 images representing 11 of the 13 Sri mo VM 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 EC.
Our key findings, there was large spatial variation across the sea melts, which is pretty typical of these deep sea benthic ecosystems.
At the central Lord House sites, remember that's the most recent VME encounter site.
Of the images that we assessed, 45% of them were classified as VMs.
So the significance of this is that our visual evidence has shown that this area does contain VMEs and should remain closed.
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 SpriFM this year.
For Northwest challenger, 64% of the images we analyzed would be considered VMmes.
Those were our VME images tended to be higher in fauna density, greater tacks on richness, your taller, larger, which 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 seam amounts that are open to bottom trawling contain multiple VMEs.
We know seam mounts are ecologically complex, unique ecosystems, and as I mentioned, all of the seam mounts that we surveyed have been heavily bot trawed.
We've also found significant evidence of coral rubble, raw scarring, and derelict fishing gear.
These are just two clips from that Northwest challenger.
The evidence that bottom trawing causes significant adverse impacts is well established in the scientific literature.
This map showing here illustrates studies from sea mounts across multiple ocean basins, which consistently documents evidence of SAIs on sea mounts.
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 sea melts.
There is a side event straight after this at lunchtime, which we'll explore this SAI evidence in a lot more detail.
I do encourage you all to go along and here lunch is provided.
Taken together, the available evidence is clear, Sam outs are vulnerable marine ecosystems.
Bottom trawling causes significant adverse impacts, and a precautionary approach requires protecting these ecosystems, before further damage can occur.
So our key recommendations to implement these resolutions, member states and RFMOs must close all cements and cement like features in areas beyond national jurisdiction to, 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 70 7118, which emphasizes the need to ensure that the precautionary approach is applied.
This would also benefit those associated independent species and biodiversity beyond BES, 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 occur.
For SRF mo, 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 traoling.
Thirdly, adopt a range of VME identification frameworks that operationalize all five, not just one of the FAO VME criteria that we've discussed this morning, including the Beco HO example that we've used.
Lastly, I would say after 20 years of implementation of UGA resolutions on bottom fishing, VME protection remains incomplete.
We have an opportunity to act here.
In particular, RFMOs, as we have seen with SRF Mo, these member states have failed to act on the best available information to identify and protect VMEs to prevent significant adverse impacts.
Pardon me.
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 BB&J Treaty and the CBD 30 by 30 protection targets.
States must effectively fulfill their responsibilities in relation to these UGA resolutions, but also as partners to these RFMOs, the CBD, and now the new BB&J treaty.
So expeditions, for those of you who have ever been to sea, are not always easy.
They're rather time consuming and can be quite complicated, 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 organizers 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.
As I mentioned, we will present this in full to the SprifM IC in September.
Thank you.
Namahii ra.
Thank you so much for that, Katrina and I'm looking forward to this side event this lunch hour.
Now, I thank the five panelists for their interesting, thought provoking presentations, and the floor is now open for questions and comments.
We already have a list, in fact.
Please feel free to add yourselves and we will take as many as we can, but we already have four and 18 minutes.
Now, first on the list on mic number 732 is the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative.
You have the floor, please.
Everyone try to limit the number of words and time.
Thanks.
Hi.
Thank you for taking my question.
My name is Peter Oster.
I'm a Mits research professor at the University of Connecticut and part of the DOC delegation here today and tomorrow.
I'm not so much asking a question as providing a comment that integrates across the presentations this morning.
This is about the use of precaution, which has just been raised significantly in the last two presentations.
But 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 and decision making may be implicit in some cases, but ideally, in terms of transparency should be explicit.
The use of precaution and decision making seems to be antithetical to the concept of mature science as doctor Jennings described this morning and 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 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.
I think that general outcome is important in applications of precaution and all these decision making forums.
Removing fish and fisheries impacts segments of their populations across depths deeper than the fisheries themselves.
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 in my notes here, I wrote brilliant papers, but two perspective papers that argue that VME are not simply the indicators themselves, but linked to a diverse community of organisms that can extend beyond the footprint of the indicator species.
Where we draw lines about where fishing should and should not take place should incorporate this concept, at least as alternatives for decision making.
Precaution should be inherent and explicit when existing data remains immature, but indicates uncertainties can be addressed.
For example, on 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.
I don't require any 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 so that we feel we need to speak way too rapidly for the interpreters to No, this was my fault actually, and I've been discussing with Secretariat that we can let this discussion bleed into the afternoon session.
So if needed, I will just take a few from the speaker's list after.
So If some of our panelists have anything they want to respond then feel welcome.
But otherwise, we could proceed with the list and we now have four 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 the International Coalition of Fishing Associations.
We are an NGO recognized by Ecosoc.
Just as a general comment and I think the questions a lot of them have been answered already that we had.
We speak a lot about impacts and I've heard some comments about it's not damaging to ban fisheries in the high seas, et cetera.
We seem to forget as well when we call for the implementation of BBNJ.
Indeed, of course, the issue of MBAs 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.
If we talk about cumulative impacts of food producing, that is what should be looked into.
Also when we reduce the food production in one area, normally, it's increasing somewhere else.
That also has to be taken into account.
Um, 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.
It doesn't mean that we just stop eating that.
It means that it will be substituted and will be detracted from somewhere else.
If we want to look about the ecosysteatic approach, we have to look at all of this.
That just to final comment is 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, et cetera These also have an effect on mortality, not only fisheries.
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.
In that sense, I welcome very much the comments from the FAO and from the ISIS 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 EMEs et cetera 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 et cetera, I was going to say there is little reference to the RFMOs but there was a lot of it in the last two 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 RFOs have not been ambitious enough, but it's just a reflection of what their members are voting.
Those members are also members of the General Assembly and members of the BBNJ treaty.
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, it's 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.
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.
Okay.
Thank you very much for that and for joining down here.
We already have five still remaining on the list.
Without me being tempted to comment in detail on the statements.
I would just note that there are many that mentioned the role of cumulative impacts.
You did it.
I think Simon did it, several others have the role that cumulative impacts play, climate change, ocean acidification, other stresses than bottom fishing.
And But next up, I would take Laos on mic 717.
After that, it's mic 668, the angio, Laos first, you have the floor.
Laos on 717, No.
I'm not lost though.
Exactly.
Maybe please just then identify yourself.
Sorry.
Anita Cri's plant based treaty.
I had a question about today's panel, which I thought was amazing.
David Attenborough in his film, Ocean, he provided footage of bottom trawling and said it was absolutely devastating and heart wrenching.
I think it's very important to actually see the footage and I appreciate the panelists from Greenpeace.
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.
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.
It's also having an impact in terms of releasing carbon into the atmosphere.
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.
My apologies for the confusion, but not a huge issue, I think, since we're all in this together in date, as I mentioned previously.
Now, we have next up on mic 668 referred to as the OJGL and I will do my best because the actual name is in French.
Is the Organisation duper economics governance.
You have the floor, please.
Merci.
Thank you very much.
My name is Abramofal and I'm the head of the organization helping young economic operators in favor of governance and 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 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.
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.
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 my comment.
Thank you very much for this initiative.
Thank you very much for that important contribution.
You mentioned poor practices and sustainable practices and the impact it can have on, let's say people's realities, including women and youth.
That, I suppose all comes down to sustainable management or being able to properly manage the resources the ocean gives us.
That's another recurring theme here.
Thank you.
We have next on the list on mic's on 630, we have apologies and thanks once again, conference officers.
On mic 630, we have the delegation of Australia.
You have the floor.
Thank you very much.
My name is Tiffany Reid Marshall.
I'm a representative from the Australian Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry.
I'd just like to make a brief comment and thank the panelists 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 enhanced engagement with stakeholders as well.
And 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 organizations that we are involved with, including the South Pacific and the South Indian Ocean as well.
Um 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 input 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 we're 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 panelists.
Thank you.
Okay.
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 1:00 already colleagues.
Australia had the famous last words of this session, except for mine, of course.
We have concluded segment one.
We will continue with discussions because I still have two speakers on my list.
That will be the first thing at 3:00 P.M.
After that, we will begin with our second segment entitled Progress made by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Arrangements in Adré the impacts of bottom fisheries on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks, in particular through the three resolutions.
Now, before concluding, I would like to give the floor to the secretary of this meeting for an announcement.
Thank you, Madam 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.
This side event is organized by the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition.
It is entitled Scientific Evidence of Significant Adverse Impacts on Sea mounts and other vulnerable marine ecosystems.
I believe there is a lunch before that, which will be provided there in the Vienna Cafe area.
Um, and other than that, if you have not yet registered for the meeting, there is a 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, Mr.
Madam Mader.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Secretary.
Again, looking forward to seeing many of you at the side event.
Distinguished delegates, we will resume our work at 3:00 P.M.
Sharp.
Please be on time.
Noting that we 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.
Thank you.