(Segment 3 and 4) Workshop on sustainable fisheries, addressing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks

Colleagues, please take your seats because we are about to start and I hope we will have another fabulous day of discussions.
I was very happy with how things went yesterday and thank you all for engaging, really.
Yesterday afternoon, we had a substantive and animated discussion regarding progress made by RFMOAs to address the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks.
We had fully exhausted our list of speakers under this segment, but not yet given our panelists an opportunity to respond to the last set of questions and comments.
It is therefore my intention to now give each panelist a few minutes to answer any questions addressed to them.
As well as to provide any final thoughts to close out Panel segment two.
I will start in the order of yesterday's presentations, counting on our panelists to be somewhat succinct, but still say what do you think is important to say to close this discussion.
Now, I I will start by giving the floor to Mr.
Campbell, to Darius from Nf.
I don't think I will need to say anything in between, you just go one after another, if that's great.
All right.
Let's go.
Darius, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, everyone.
Yes, I'll just make a few comments which also answers the question regarding from Greenpeace.
In terms of the VME regulations.
I am quite happy that NAF has made really good progress over those and continues to do so.
The scientific advice we had from ICS the last time in 2024 was basically saying that the regulations were effective in terms of the protection they were providing.
The only query they had was whether encounters in existing areas were being reported or not, and that was an open question and that's only 2% of our areas.
So IC is also reflected on the fact that the science is always developing and that they would develop their science.
As I've mentioned, they're having a benchmark in 2027, which means that their science will evolve and therefore their advice will evolve to us.
On the monitoring control and surveillance side, I know, although we haven't concluded formally through the NAF committees, I certainly know from my own monitoring and control surveillance officer that we have really good compliance on the issues of VMEs as well.
So I think really I'm thinking about NAP will have a performance review next year, looking at all our work.
We need to make progress on ecosystem based approaches to fisheries management.
We have potential to work on OECM and of course, we have the BBNJ.
All these things will help us in the continuing evolution we have on VME protection.
But I think in particular, it's going to help us in terms of and having a more comprehensive approach, taking into account the developments that are happening such as under the BBNJ and the global biodiversity framework.
I am optimistic and I conclude with the same point that I made during the discussions that it's amazing to think that the younger resolutions were not binding and yet they've made so much progress right across all RFMOs.
Of course, there are challenges, but it does show you that even without binding legal requirements at the top level, the RFMOs have been active in implementing developments here.
Thank you.
Thank you and good morning everyone.
I had an outstanding question to Navel on lessons learned on how to forward further closures ecosystem approach and so forth.
That is not really for the Secretariat to answer.
But in general, it is the mandate of the individual contracting parties and how that plays out in individual RFOs which have different composition of CPs, which then dictates where and how and to what extent the mandate gets forwarded.
So I don't really have an answer to that, but it's complex as in all international negotiations, depends on billions of factors.
So unfortunately, there's no real answer to that.
On my general comment is that I think that these two days have been really fruitful.
There's been a good discussion.
There is no unity on there's not one voice in the room on the effectiveness of how um states and RFMOs have been implementing the Angara solutions.
It's a bit of a full, half empty glass.
So from the RFMO perspective and from NAFO perspective, this is an ongoing thing, just like our ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach.
We are not finished.
We are certainly not on the first stages.
But the work is ongoing and there is a lot that has been done.
So I think having discussions like this is good, but I also think we need to be realistic on what can be done and the time it takes.
So thank you.
Good morning, everyone, and it's a pleasure to be again at the stand.
I was reflecting last night on the discussion we had yesterday, and for me, the focus was around the information needed for effective management.
Our mission to strike a balance between a sustainable exploitation of the resources and conservation of the biodiversity is no small task.
And in my view the RFMOs are doing their best, even though, of course, for some people, that best is not enough.
CIFAR history is a history of precautionary action.
Younger RFMO where we didn't have a lot of information, but yet we did manage to take some steps in the right direction.
It's also a good model to say that when we have information, better information.
We can do adjust management to try to perform our duties in a different way.
So I guess my conclusion for my own self from what I've seen yesterday was that we can have effective management even in the absence of perfect information.
But when that information becomes available, we can make that management even better.
In order to make that information available, we do need to rely on all the resources possible because we face the challenges of many other RFMOs, distant waters, high costs for research, and therefore, leveraging all the opportunities, including cooperation with the fishing industry is paramount to get that information.
Thank you.
That's me.
Thank you.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in the rigorous debate yesterday.
I was encouraged that there was debate, and the discussion and while there was a discussion about using the word reactionary management to describe the management of vulnerable marine ecosystems, I would like to re mention the point that was a said yesterday from the ICE's working group on deepwater ecology in 2010 where they say the damage caused by deep sea bottom fishing activities to marine habitats and species in particular, VME indicators is likely to remain unrecovered for decades to centuries.
Reactionary management strategies such as the encounter clauses and move on rules are of limited benefit to prevent significant adverse impacts because they still allow damage to occur, which will gradually degrade ecosystems over time.
Um, I also would like to comment on the intervention toward the end of the session.
I want to stress the point that we are talking about the high seas.
Given the presentations yesterday from doctors Amy Taylor Baco and doctor Savannah Good, we know that the best available science points to increase VME biomass being taken with the increased fishing effort over time.
They made it clear that trawling cannot be done without leading to significant adverse impacts.
We also heard yesterday about the challenges of conducting the gold standards, full stock assessments due to research funding and challenges of that kind and incorporating considerations of future impacts from climate change and assessing these cumulative impacts of bottom fishing and trawling due to the various forms of connectivity and including vertical habitat connectivity from sea mounts, which are Somewhat underconided, and there seems to be some problems that have not been resolved due to this responsiveness gap that's found as an overall trend in some of these governance mechanisms underpinning the frameworks and if Institutions are struggling to keep pace with industry extraction and climate change and biodiversity loss and habitat loss.
States must begin to step in at all avenues in which they participate, including staying consistent with the new BB&J treaty principles as well as when they participate at these RFMOs.
I was encouraged and appreciated the interventions from states like the Philippines and Australia and Korea, particularly the Philippines, when they mentioned the point about damage done to high se sea mounts and associated ecosystems and the scaled impact.
I mentioned it toward the end of my presentation, but I just want to reiterate and end on that the decision is with states to lead with a decisive action that protects vulnerable marine ecosystems from harm, including bottom trawling and I'm looking forward to the next session that's addressing the progress of states.
Thank you.
Well, thank you very much.
All of you, our RFMO people who talked about their work and academic who talked about their work also.
It's been a good start of the day and to get into thinking mode and remembering what we talked about yesterday.
I Two of you actually, you in your last intervention and Brenler mentioned the role of states, if RFMOs are the backbone of the Fishtocks Agreement and international management of fisheries, then of course, they are still the states that are the members, the contracting parties.
It all comes down to the states.
It would be good to continue with discussions on what states are doing in their own capacity.
So that's it for Panel two.
I would warmly thank all of our panelists, Mr.
Darius Campbell from Nf, Brynhild Bed Sote from Nafo, Elizabea Petula Morello, who gave us a fantastic online presentation or pre recorded yesterday from DFCM, Mr.
Marco Milardi from Sofa, and Gabriel Carmine from Georgetown University.
Thank you all of you.
You are now dismissed.
This brings us to the end of Segment two and I would like to once again thank all of you and ask our panelists for the third panel to join me here at the podium.
We will take a 1 minute break or so.
Yes, it's.
Okay.
Distinguished colleagues, let us now turn to segment three entitled, Progress made by states in addressing the impacts of bottom fisheries on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks.
In particular, through the implementation of relevant paragraphs of resolutions 64 slash 72, 66 slash 68, and 77 slash 118.
Thereafter at approximately 11 30 this morning, we will turn to Segment four entitled Focus on the Experience and Special Requirements of Developing states in addressing the impose fisheries, et cetera I will not read out multiple times the very long name of this important workshop.
I We will now hear two presentations under segment three.
One of which is pre recorded, followed by questions and interactive discussions.
Counting on all of you, of course, to participate in those discussions.
Now, the following panelists will participate in this segment.
Mr.
Juan Elisis Lopez, Secretary-General for Fisheries at the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food of Spain.
The title of his presentation is Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Fisheries Joint Management based on the best available scientific evidence.
We will also hear from miss Heather Wort, Manager of International Fisheries at the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries.
The title of her presentation is the Contributions of New Zealand to the Management of Bottom Fishing in Spriffmor and Kammer.
And I will need to note that although miss Savor has submitted prerecorded presentations, she is listening online and if the technology works as it should and as we hope, she will be able to respond to questions from the audience.
I do wonder what time it is on her side of the world, but I do want to say I appreciate her being online with us.
I would now like to give the floor to our first panelist, Mr.
Juan Ess Lopez, you have the floor.
I'm very happy that you're joining us one and I think you're brave to be sitting here with me.
I hope it will be a cosy panel, one could say, with a limited number of people but good people.
We have a saying in Iceland which goes, few people but good people and that's important.
No pressure, of course, on others in the room from other states to share their experiences and respond and react later on.
I I may have mistakenly stated that our New Zealander is listening online, which I was actually surprised at given the time difference.
It is unclear to us if that's the case, but maybe her colleagues or neighbors would be able to respond if that's possible.
All right.
Okay.
While we work on the technical aspects, there.
Yes, okay because you wonder if we take the video first.
Yeah.
We get some time too.
We will actually switch and we will hear from New Zealand first and then sort out Spain's presentation.
No Ka.
Thank you to the Secretary-General for Hanako Kara.
Thank you to the Secretary-General for convening this workshop and to the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Do Los, for facilitating a New Zealand presentation as it was not possible to travel from New Zealand for this event.
As outlined in New Zealand's report for this workshop, New Zealand takes a very active role in addressing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and ensuring the sustainability of deep sea stocks.
We do so primarily through the excellent and dedicated work of New Zealand scientists and consistent with the agreed scientific processes and management measures of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization, SpriFM and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, CMA.
Both of these organizations manage bottom fishing.
They have different legal foundations, different membership, and cover different portions of the world's oceans, but both base their decisions on the best available science.
Getting with SprifM, the New Zealand Report sets out in great detail the work undertaken by New Zealand and other SpriFM members to develop robust management of bottom fisheries within the convention area.
We encourage all workshop participants to read the New Zealand report carefully and also read the deep well of scientific work on which the report is based.
If a SprifM member proposes to undertake bottom fishing within the specified management areas of the convention area, then under the SprifM Management Framework, they must submit a bottom fishing impact assessment.
These bottom fishing impact assessments are assessed by the Scientific committee.
They must be updated at least every three years or earlier if there has been a substantial change in the fishery.
This ensures that management approaches are based on science and updated as new information becomes available.
In 2023, New Zealand, along with Australia, presented a new bottom fishing impact assessment to the Sri Mo Scientific Committee.
This was an update of the earlier 2020 assessment.
For this 2023 bottom fishing impact assessment, described the management arrangements, the status of the main stocks, the ecological risk assessments, including for interactions with marine mammals, reptiles, seabirds, and the benthic habitats.
It also estimated the status of ten VME indicator taxa within the fishery management areas using the relative benefit status method.
The Swift Bow Scientific Committee accepted this bottom fishing impact assessment, indicating that it represented the best available science, it provided a sound basis for formulating management advice, and it met international standards, including the FAO Deep Sea guidelines.
In 2024, New Zealand and Australia updated this bottom fishing impact assessment.
This updated assessment applied an alternative dynamic relative benthic status method to incorporate fishery impact data from recent fishing activities.
Broadly, this method enabled three things.
First, the reassessment of tax on specific depletion and recovery values.
Second, the reevaluation of the relationship between estimated habitat suitability and observed abundance.
Third, the inclusion of assessments for seven additional VME indicators.
The Scientific committee then agreed to this revised 2024 Boom fishing impact assessment, incorporating these new methods.
It also agreed that these new methods should be applied to the next update of the bottom fishing impact assessment, which is scheduled for 2027.
The Scientific committee agreed to add to its work plan further work to develop and validate abundance models for VME indicator taxa.
New Zealand plays an active role in this work.
In addition to providing these robust bottom fishing impact assessments, in 2025, New Zealand led the review of the bottom fishing impact assessment standard for SRF mow.
In reviewing the standards for these bottom fishing impact assessments, New Zealand considered the overarching objectives for bottom fishing impact assessments and how these relate to relevant conservation and management measures, as well as other relevant instruments, such as the stock assessment framework.
As a result, the improved bottom fishing impact standard will be used to inform the next bottom fishing impact assessment.
As I noted earlier, this is scheduled to be considered by the SprifM Scientific Committee in 2027.
Of course, in addition to assessing the impacts of bottom fishing, it is essential to also regularly assess the status of the stocks.
Since 2022, New Zealand has presented two deep sea stock assessments to Sf Mo.
This includes the orange ruffie stocks for Louisville Ridge, West Norfolk Ridge, Lord Howe Rise, and the Northwest Challenger plateau in 2022.
A assessment of orange ruffie stocks in the Challenger plateau in 2024.
A further stock assessment for the challenger plateau is due in 2028.
New Zealand is also conducting a specialist technical review of the orange ughie stock structure on the West Pac Bank and the adjacent New Zealand EZ in the Tasman Sea.
The objectives of this work are to review aspects of orange ughie science, including data collection, biological parameters, and assessment approaches.
This will then inform the ongoing science work plan for New Zealand's Orange ughie fisheries, both domestically and in the SriFMw convention area.
In addition to this work on target species, management of bycatch and impacts on non target species is an essential component of fisheries management.
This is reflected in the SriFMw conservation and management measure for the management of bottom fishing.
Under this measure, the Scientific Committee is required to provide advice to the Commission on the extent of interactions between bottom fishing and species of concern and to provide any recommendations for management action as a consequence.
New Zealand, again, with Australia has led analysis on the impacts of bottom fishing on species of concern.
This includes the presentation of papers to the Scientific Committee in 2022 and 2024.
As a result of this work, the Scientific Committee noted that the capture of marine mammals, seabirds and reptiles are rare in the SriFmoo fisheries.
The scientific committee agreed that there was no need at this time for additional measures.
But as I already noted, it is a requirement for the scientific committee to regularly review the impact of bottom fishing on species of concern.
Further to this, New Zealand led work over the last two years to promote the adoption of a strengthened measure for minimizing by catch of seabirds in the SriffM convention area.
The Commission adopted this measure at its meeting in February 2026.
So.
Fisheries managers, it's also critical that there are robust processes in place in the event that there is an incident which may cause significant adverse impact from bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems.
This regime is set out in the SRF mode conservation and Management measure which regulates bottom fishing.
This measure sets out the obligations for members if the vessels have bycatch or VME indicator taxa at or above prescribed thresholds.
These thresholds are based on a precautionary approach and are within the lower end of parameters established by the Scientific Committee in 2021.
In 2025, the Scientific Committee reaffirmed that these parameters are still based on the best available science available for setting the encounter threshold.
So in addition to the move on obligation for the vessel concerned, there is also a requirement for the flag state to undertake a thorough review of the encounter.
The flag state must provide a report to the Scientific committee which indicates whether the EME was present in the encounter area and whether the encounter was likely to have caused significant adverse impacts.
This report from the flag state should also include any management recommendations as a result of the encounter.
These recommendations are then considered by the scientific committee with final decisions made by the Commission.
To aid in this process, SprifM has adopted an encounter review standard.
New Zealand led the development of the standard and SprifM adopted it in 2024.
This was the first time that a regional Fisheries Management Organization managing deep sea fisheries had adopted such a standard.
This encounter review standard provides clear guidelines for carrying out reviews of encounters with potential VMEs.
It sets out the process for the scientific committee when it considers the reviews of encounters and delivers advice to the commission.
Under this process, New Zealand is currently updating our review of a particular encounter by a New Zealand vessel in the Tasman Sea in 2024.
This update will take into account additional information which was not available at the time of New Zealand's original review of this encounter.
We expect to submit this updated encounter review to the Scientific committee in September.
New Zealand is actively involved in the SFM Management Framework for bottom fishing to ensure that it is underpinned by the best available science.
I have set out our involvement in the regular updates to the bottom conservation and management measure, the bottom fishing impact assessments, and the encounter standards.
Looking ahead, New Zealand continues to invest in science to support the sustainable management of FrithM fisheries.
Currently, New Zealand is exploring alternative approaches using ecological bio regions as the basis for spatial management.
We hope that this might provide the means to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs whilst maintaining appropriate fishing opportunities.
Okay.
Turning now to the Antarctic and the Commission for the conservation of Antarctic Marine living resources, Kmla.
New Zealand is a founding and active member of this commission established in 1986.
Hamla has a well developed management framework for its bottom fisheries.
This level of cautionary management aligns with its status.
Kamla is not a regional fisheries management organization.
It is part of the Antarctic Trey system and has a single objective, conservation.
All of the measures relevant to Kme's comprehensive management of bottom fishing were in place in 2022 when New Zealand last reported into this particular process.
Within Kmela, the focus is on implementation of these measures.
Since 2022, additional VME and VME risk areas have been identified under the relevant Kmela conservation measures, and these areas have been closed to bottom fishing.
The processes and evidence used for the identification, reporting, and management of VMEs are the subject of continuous improvement work.
New Zealand has continued to undertake scientific research to identify where VMEs are likely to occur and to verify areas classified as either potential or designated VMEs in the Roth Sea region.
New Zealand vessels participating in the Ross Sea exploratory fishery collect data.
This is collected by observers on those vessels and also by the fishers themselves.
Data is also collected by New Zealand scientific research vessels in the Ross Sea.
All of this feeds into New Zealand's scientific contribution to Camera.
New Zealand also undertakes the Ross Sea Shelf survey of toothfish and the stock assessment for the Ross Sea exploratory tooth fishery.
This world leading stock assessment underpins Kam's precautionary management of the fishery.
I've outlined a number of measures from both SriffM and Kaml for the effective management of the impacts of bottom fishing.
But it is also critical that there are effective monitoring, control, and surveillance mechanisms in place across both SpriFM and KMA in line with relevant obligations.
New Zealand deploys observers on our flagged vessels.
In addition, New Zealand conducts aerial and surface patrolling in the Pacific and Southern oceans to monitor compliance and deter and detect IUU fishing.
This is a vital contribution to ensuring that we can achieve the goals of sustainably managed, bottom fishing.
While it was not possible for experts from New Zealand to attend this workshop in person, we look forward to a report on the discussions.
I encourage any interested participants to read New Zealand's report in full and to reach out to New Zealand officials if you have any questions.
Thank you and best wishes for the remainder of the workshop.
Na Mihi.
Thank you very much.
I would ask the Secretariat to communicate our sincere thanks to Heather Ward for providing the meeting with her thorough presentation.
I thought it was particularly brave to give her email address to anyone in here wanting to get in touch and discuss with her.
Kudos for that.
And I thought I discussed briefly the interplay between RFMOs and individual states before we started this.
I thought this was a beautiful example.
But then she starts the presentation by explaining how New Zealand works through RFMOs still that New Zealand and Australia, for instance, had led an analysis on species of concern.
That New Zealand had led development of a standard, which then SprifM had adopted and this all is symbolic for how important this interplay between the RFMO the states is.
But enough of me talking, we all want to hear from Juan here who has been patiently waiting to make his presentation.
Please, you have the floor.
To allow me to enjoyment, knowledge, and life for the coastal communities.
Spain's experience is not unique, but I offer this as a way of understanding our experience on the basis of the best available scientific evidence.
We're open to innovation, and this has been built on the basis of cooperation across administrations, science, and the fishing sector, which is providing experience and knowledge and insight.
The first question that we have to ask ourselves is, what is it that we are trying to preserve and protect? When we talk about vulnerable marine ecosystems, we're talking about some of The highest echogical value in the ocean.
These are habitats that has enormous amounts of biodiversity.
They fulfill essential roles and they also contribute to the resilience of marine ecosystems and they represent natural heritage that is of extraordinary value and preserving this cannot be up for debate.
Preserving these vulnerable marine ecosystems is and it should be a part of a responsibility that we must all share.
But oceans, and we should never forget, do not just represent ecological value.
They also the ocean sustain human activity, and this is fundamental for maintaining our societies.
All.
The ocean provides healthy foods, employment, economic activity, food security, and it keeps a number of coastal communities alive.
It also preserves knowledge, tradition, and cultural heritage that has been passed down from generation to generation.
When we talk about defending the fishing sector, we shouldn't be referring only to an economic activity fishing, but rather defending a whole set of values that fishing brings to society.
The question is not just about how can we hold on to value but really how to manage it all as a whole.
From our perspective, this is the real challenge.
Preservation and fishing often are presented in contrast or in opposition to one another and this is rather simplistic.
In the regional Fisheries Management Organizations, we have seen that there is compatibility here.
Vulnerable marine ecosystems, ecological goods that we should preserve and the fishing sets also represents a good for society and this should also be maintained.
Both of these are part of the general interest.
And so modern management that we should apply should therefore not just be limited to protecting one or the other.
This system, this management does not mean giving up on protecting VMEs.
Rather, we should seek strategies that allow us to reconcile both of these values using knowledge, innovation, and dialogue.
So how can we bring this about? How can we improve this management? Starting from knowledge, science is the foundation for any responsible decision.
In addition to knowing about the existence of vulnerable marine ecosystems, it's also important to know how the different types of fishing gear interact with these different marine ecosystems.
We need to be aware of the real risks that each of these activities has on the environment, we need to know about the frequency of interaction, the intensity of these interactions taking place and the spatial scale that we're talking about.
Ultimately when decisions are taken, we need to know about all of the consequences of the decision or activity.
We also need continuous follow up because decisions should not be static, they should not be one off.
They need to evolve in accordance with new technological solutions and as new information emerges.
Here I want to highlight the importance of innovation.
This is not just an accessory point.
This is crucial and this is going to allow us to continuously improve and explore solutions before resorting to restrictive measures.
So how do we take the best possible decisions? As I said earlier, we are basing our decisions on information and knowledge.
Science helps us assess the impact, the risks, and assess the efficiency, but science doesn't actually take the decisions.
This responsibility falls on us, the administrators, the managers.
It is our role on the basis of the available scientific information and taking into account all public interests.
It is down to us to apply all the measures that allow us to maintain and preserve vulnerable marine ecosystems and also ensure the sustainability of the fishing sector by ensuring food security, employment, social cohesion, and also cultural heritage.
And so we should talk also about taking effective decisions that are proportioned and well suited.
The decisions also need to be continuously reviewed and adjusted in light of new results and so from improvements in knowledge and progress in technology.
I want to just say a few words about how the different types of fishing gear interact? Do they all interact in the same way with VMEs? I think the answer is no.
Each type of fishing gear has a different type of interaction.
It depends on a number of fact.
Is it active or is it a passive type of fishing? What type of species are they bending? Are they pelagic, and so on? What type of contact do they have with the ocean floor? There are many different ways for this interaction to occur.
And so for all of these reasons, I think it's important that we should avoid these general or generalized approaches, and we should use specific knowledge about each type of fishing on how they operate, and what frequency and what their real impact is on VMEs and the ones that they can have an impact on.
So knowing about these differences and these distinctions will allow us to design adapted management measures that are better suited and better proportion.
What about innovation? The profiles interaction profiles can be adapted.
He innovation plays a fundamental role.
As I was saying, I would like to present two examples of technical modifications based on innovation that have had significant impacts in terms of reducing the impact on VMEs.
One of these is stone Ball long line.
And this, thanks to some adjustments to its configuration, has totally changed the profile of interaction with the seabed.
It reduces interaction with the seabed and it uses a system of weights and floats that allows the gear to maintain its function without or at least in a very limited way, impacting the seabed and the VME.
It is extremely selective, this stoneball long line gear.
Another example of technological innovation are the flying doors.
This is another example of an innovation that has considerably altered the pattern of interaction of the gear with the seabed.
Again, as I said, we reduce the contact with the seabed and of the trough itself and this overall reduces quite significantly the impact on the VME.
It reduces the friction.
And you also get also a significant reduction in fuel consumption and also in the carbon footprint of the emissions.
These are just two examples.
I'm not suggesting this is universal solutions.
These are just adaptations that facilitate this reconciliation of marine ecosystems and fishing.
What have we learned? On the basis of these experiences, we can extract a few conclusions.
The first of these, and I think we heard a little bit about this earlier or yesterday from the RFMOs, it is possible to ensure a compatibility.
This is not automatic.
It is the outcome of good governance and good cooperation, joint management.
This requires deep scientific knowledge, support, cooperation, and innovation to seek solutions, and it also requires a lot of participation from the fishing sector to provide practical experience and feedback.
I will wrap up this presentation highlighting the three key takeaway messages that I want to leave you.
Firstly, science must guide our decisions without science.
We cannot know about the ecosystems, we cannot evaluate the risks, and we cannot measure the effectiveness of the measures that we're implementing.
Innovation also has the capacity to improve management.
It helps us seek more effective, more efficient, and more proportionate solutions that are better adapted and better suited to reality.
Finally, adaptive management should allow us to maintain sustainable VMEs and also the sustainable fishing sector.
Our goal is not to choose, but rather to manage both of these goals.
Spain's commitment is to continue working in this direction with science, innovation, and cooperation seeking adaptive fisheries for future generations.
I thank you.
Thank you very much for that, Manuel.
This concludes the presentations for panel segment three.
This is actually good from the perspective of time management.
The floor is now open for questions and comments.
I would note in this regard that together with the Secretariat, I did make efforts to invite a broader cross section of states to share their experiences.
Under this segment, Ultimately, those efforts were unsuccessful.
I would just repeat my thanks to those braving to make presentations and then encourage people in the room delegations to engage in discussion with us and provide perhaps additional views and perspectives.
I thought your presentation was very interesting and have a number of questions myself and I would love to sit here and discuss, but I do think we have people asking for the floor already and That is the case indeed.
We have 13, which I believe is green peace.
Yes.
You have the floor, please.
Near me? Okay.
Thank you, Madam Moderator.
It's also great to see New Zealand is here today this morning, da.
We would like to make a statement and perhaps Madam Moderator and Secretariat, if this is okay, request a response from New Zealand as a follow up given the online presentation.
Anger resolutions require member states and RFMOs to identify where VMEs are known to occur or are likely to occur and adopt conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems as we've heard over the last two days.
In 2023, SpriFM approved an updated CMM, which states that from 2024, the Commission shall apply a minimum of 70% protection of suitable habitat for each modeled VME indicated taxa.
Yesterday, we were presented with clear scientific evidence based on a global body of scientific research that bottom trawling can't be undertaken on seam mounts without causing significant adverse impacts on VMAs.
We are also hearing over these two days, especially by the RFMOs this morning, the important role of member states to lead and implement these UNGA commitments to prevent significant adverse impacts.
In the 2024 2025 bottom trawl season, only two New Zeal vessels fish Sf Mose waters.
One of which triggered a move on and a VME encounter at the Lord Howe rise.
In our presentation yesterday, we highlighted our expedition footage from this particular location and our analysis from the site showing clear evidence of VMEs being present within this VME encounter site temporarily closed following the move on rule.
Further, Australia stated that for the last three consecutive years, the SriffM Commission has failed to implement this agreed minimum level of protection.
Given the large volume of peer reviewed scientific evidence, how does New Zealand continue to justify its position authorizing bottom trawling on Cam out while blocking implementation of protection measures? Thank you.
Thank you so much for that green piece.
There was a question in there.
This leaves me as the moderator in a bit of trouble because I thought it was clear from the presentation that I would be this speaker that would be engaging in dialogue if that was possible.
I would maybe ask the delegation of New Zealand to convey this.
I actually see that I have New Zealand wanting to take the floor.
That's Japan.
I wonder if it's okay with Japan that I take New Zealand first to keep this interaction going.
New Zealand, you have the floor.
Madam Moderator.
Thank you, Madam Moderator for giving me the floor.
We are here in the New Zealand delegation and TNR Queer to our Greenpeace colleagues from the local mission to support the conduct of the workshop today given the importance of the topic and of course, the stakeholder participation.
But as our colleague outlined in the presentation, Wellington representatives were not in a position to attend and New Zealand encourages focus on its report and the content of the presentation.
We do appreciate, however, the engagement and the questions and we undertake to act as a conduit for the questions and ensure that they're brought to the attention of the relevant experts.
Perhaps by way of suggestion, I could encourage any delegations or NGO representatives that have questions to approach us on the margins and we can make sure that the content of those are appropriately related.
Thank you very much for that, New Zealand.
I then give the floor to our colleague from Japan.
You have the floor.
Thank you, moderator, and good morning to everybody.
Thank you very much to the present very interesting presentation, especially our delegation is very much interested in the new fishing gear presented by Spain, especially in the Sonbl online.
I haven't heard this new year, so it's very interesting.
Thank you very much for that information.
Then I Japan is a member of the five RFMOs which manage the bottom fisheries, namely the NPFC, NAPO CFO, COA and Camera.
As a member of the RPMOs, Japan has contributed the development of the management measures and implemented the measures.
All measures which adopted by the RPMOs applied to Japanese fishing vessels through domestic registration.
Then I would like to share our experience and what Japan did, especially in the North Pacific in the NPF C.
In the North Pacific, Japan conducted the impact assessment and publicized the report in 2008.
After that, Japan has continued the research activities and submitted the information to the NPFC.
Then now NPSC members are required to submit the new impact assessment report to the NPSC to the next scientific committee, which will be held in January 2027.
So Japan will submit the new impact assessment updated impact assessment based on our research to the next year's scientific committee in 2027.
Then the fisheries Agency of Japan has dispatched research vessel.
The name is Kayo Mau, which is the largest fisheries research vessels in Japan to the Emperor Simão almost every year to collect the new information and conduct the BMI research and report the results to the NPOC if there is a a information support the existence of the BME, Japan proposed to the closure for that area based on that information.
The official residency of Japan continues the research activities and the proposes the establishment of the c area if it of the PME is confirmed.
Then this year, NPSC was not able to agree on the catch limit for the splendid Alfonso.
But after the meeting, the Japanese fishing industry set b catch limit, even though there is no decision by the NPSC but our fishing industry has taken the betary measures to limit their catch.
So this is a kind of update of what Japan did, especially in the North Pacific.
I hope it's and we continue to do this work to mitigate the impact of auto fisheries to the VME.
Thank you very much.
I thank you warmly for the several points you have made, Japan, and I think our panelists might be interested in responding to you because I thought there were some impressions and possibly questions that you had.
Apparently, there were more people than me curious about the Stonebl line, which I thought was interesting.
But please, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Yes, indeed.
The Stone baall long line is based on a bottom long line, but it has a series of adaptations that have been made to it.
This has made it possible for the activity to To be maintained to be just as effective, to be on the same line, but it avoids the contact and interaction with the seabed.
This is on the basis of a mama study that was carried out with the Spanish Institute of Oceanography over the last three years where they analyzed more than 5,000 launches from the electronic observation and other factors and they were able to determine determine the very low impact that this system has a lot of with all of these analyses, 1,500, there was out of 1 million interactions in a practical sense.
This is not a major adverse impact for us, this is compatible with the vulnerable marine ecosystems.
But if you are interested in additional specific scientific information, we'd be happy to provide it to you.
Thank you so much for that.
Now, I have an increasing number of delegates wanting to take the floor, which is excellent.
First on the list, I have Iceland, then followed by Australia, Canada, and China, Iceland, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Thank you very much to the presenters for very interesting presentations.
I think I can say that one thing we see from the presentations is drawing conclusions on what are the main roles of states in implementation as opposed to RFMOs because as we've seen, to a large extent, the way that the states are implementing things is through the RFMOs in most of the areas where high seas bottom fishing is taking place.
Of course, there are RFMOs and the implementation takes place through that and I think the intervention or the presentation of New Zealand in particular was very interesting in that context.
I'm trying not to just repeat the points that I made yesterday when we were talking about the RFMOs, but I feel at least I need to emphasize that point as was pointed out by the Secretary of NAPO and others, obviously, RFMOs are simply the collection of their members, the roles of states in actually implementing things through the RFMOs is very important.
But we also have implementation of states as flag states where there are no RFMOs and again, repeating what I said yesterday, that's basically just a complicated way of saying the Southwest Atlantic.
That's the only area where you have bottom fishing outside the regime of an RFMO.
But I would also like to thank very much the presentation, the presenter from Spain for highlighting the point that states obviously also have a very important role when it comes to formulating new approaches when you're developing fishing gear and things like that.
That's not something we could realistically expect the RFOs as institutions to do.
So the role of states is very important there, and I think the presentation that we saw on those issues is very relevant for us, and I thank them for that.
And also related to that, but different nevertheless, is a lot of scientific work that is carried out by states, not necessarily only under the auspices of RFMOs or related scientific committees, but then hopefully feeding their way into that and work of states when it comes to scientific research can be very important in continuing with our task of improving how we are dealing with preventing significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems and of course, ensuring the sustainability of the fisheries for the deep sea stocks themselves.
There I think it's important to note that the development of methodologies for data limited situations will remain an important part of our dealing with the sustainability of the Face stalks themselves.
And I know in many areas of the world, such methodologies have been developed and continue to be improved, and I think that is very important work.
Unfortunately, I think we have to recognize also that there is not any one size fits all situation in this.
We cannot simply say something that has worked for a particular state or in a particular area can then automatically be done in exactly the same way in a different area.
But we can nevertheless learn from each other.
I think therefore, having forum like this where we go through how things are doing and a both the presentations we saw here and again, referring to what we saw regarding regional implementation yesterday.
I think that's very useful for us to prevent the situation for someone like me who is mainly working in the North Atlantic, just focusing on how developments are there and not seeing how things are taking place and what are the main challenges and how they are being met in other regions.
I think that's very much worthwhile.
Again, sticking with the theme of this segment, that is where also states who are parties to various RFMOs around the world can be very important.
My own state is only party 23 RFMOs, all of them are in the Atlantic, but we are very happy to cooperate with states who are active in other regions and also working with different secretariats of RFMOs et cetera I think gives us very good insights.
There is one element that has been missing from the discussion so far and I know perhaps the reason it has been missing is that we will have a segment on it coming up, but I think it's very relevant in this context as well and that is developing states and their capacity to implement these things.
I think we would be remiss to look at that only in the context of a of the next segment which is focused on that because it is an essential element when it comes to states' ability to implement the resolutions, and we have to recognize that that ability is not the same for every state.
There are states who don't have the overall capacity to do the same thing when it comes to managing fisheries as other states do.
I happen to come from a country that has very robust and very resource rich fisheries management.
But we recognize that not everyone is in a position to do that.
That means that we have to recognize that development cooperation, capacity building, et cetera, is very important when it comes to ensuring we have good implementation by states of the resolution.
This is basically where I highlight the fact that Iceland has placed a lot of emphasis on fisheries and fisheries management when it comes to our work in development cooperation.
But I would also like to highlight the fact that the When you look at the SDGs, generally, SDG 14 has been identified as one of the most underfunded SDG, and I think that's an element that we can't really look away from.
It's a very important aspect of what we're doing here.
Rather than just taking that in the next segment where I know we will go much more in depth, I think it's important to look at that directly in the context of implementation by states.
I would also like to press the point again, which I mentioned more than once yesterday, that the overall approach of the current UNJ resolutions have been very successful.
We have been looking at a lot of implementation, which has been highlighted by presenters in these discussions.
That does not mean it's perfect and we still need to continue to improve what we're doing.
But if you compare the situation now to what it was before then, we're really looking at enormous differences I'm somewhat hesitant really to give the UNGA resolution the entire credit for that because as we all know, work on these issues had already begun before that.
So I think by and large, we should give it credit for giving a coordinated approach and making sure that this is something that is acted on everywhere.
In that context, I think it has been very important.
I think it also has given a great impetus to organizations like FAO to do a lot of technical work, which has been absolutely essential in formulating how things are then done more on the ground.
I Finally, I would like to end by giving one question to the panelists that is there from Spain.
As I said, I very much appreciated the presentation that we already heard.
But I also read the written submission that Spain did submit and there's an element there that I would sort of Like to ask about or ask the delegate to elaborate a bit on.
That is the measures that Spain has implemented as a flag state in the Southwest Atlantic where there is no RFMO.
Like I said, that is, as far as I'm aware of, the only area of the high seas where there isn't an RFMO but there are high seas bottom fishing.
So it's important that flag states take that responsibility, and I was very happy to take note of that point in the written submission by Spain that you have taken those flag state measures.
So as a final point, basically to ask Spain if they could elaborate slightly on those measures that they have adopted in the Southwest Atlantic.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Iceland.
Among other things for bringing up the necessity of mainstreaming means of implementations and what states actually need to be able to deliver proper management into the discussion, even if we have a dedicated panel right after this.
Speaking of wits, I will keep this discussion going a little longer than I had planned on, Previously, I was planning on 11 30, but I think we have a good discussion going on.
Thank you.
It also for stealing my question to Spain that I had up my sleeve on the situation where there is no RFMO because we've discussed so much about the interplay between RFMOs and states.
But what does a flag state do if there is no RFMO? This would be very interesting to hear from you.
Thank you.
We're talking about? Thank you.
Spain is a part of the EU and all of the decisions taken by the EU also apply to Spanish flag vessels and we work in a coordinated fashion to implement the measures and also to fulfill The norms of the port state.
This is covered in the EU's laws and norms and this applies to all vessels.
This is work that is coordinated with all member states that are involved in this activity.
As was mentioned in the interventions, the member states participate very actively.
Through the regional Fisheries Management Organizations.
In those cases where there isn't one, as in the Southwest Atlantic, the collection of measures at the e level also apply.
Thank you so much.
I have now on the list Australia, Canada, China, and Norway, and Australia, you have the floor, please.
Thank you.
Thank you for the presentations from Spain and New Zealand and I certainly commend states on their action to progress the Unger resolutions and implement those key decisions.
Australia certainly welcomed the opportunity to provide a response to inform the Secretary-General report on bottom fishing impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks.
I'd like to take a moment just to highlight a few key updates from Australia.
Protecting our marine biodiversity and ensuring sustainable fishing is a priority for the Australian government and is also required under our laws.
We are party to five regional fishery management organizations, and we were active in the international consultations that led to their establishment.
Two of these RFMOs have competence for deep sea fishery resources on the high seas.
We've heard about them a lot, S and oh my goodness, I'm going to butch this one, but the South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agnment.
Australia is also a member, including those using bottom troll gear.
Currently, demersal is allowable in approximately 5% of our national representative system of marine protected areas, which covers 53% of Australia's waters.
In addition, there are state and territory managed marine parks as well as fishery closure areas that further increase the total area close to bottom trawling.
It's estimated that Australia currently trawls less than 1.1% of 8.2 million square kilometer continental marine estate.
Recent analysis indicates that less than 3.5% of the Australian seabed has been affected by trawling in recent years, among the lowest footprint recorded worldwide.
Australian fishery managers also implement a range of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impact of raw fishing.
These include total allowable catches, quota systems for target species, spatial and seasonal closures, limiting the number of trawl licenses, restricting the type of trawl gear, including nets and mesh sizes, and mandating where relevant, the use of bycatch reduction devices, such as seal and turtle excluder devices and bird scaring lines to protect threatened species.
These measures are also supported by compliance and reporting requirements, including the use of onboard observers, vessel monitoring systems, and electronic monitoring.
Australian flag vessels fishing in SriffM conservation areas and the Sio area of competency operate under high seas permit issued by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, also known as AFMA.
The conditions of these high seas permits implement in domestic management arrangements, the conservation and management measures adopted by the commissions and the meetings of the parties.
Australian flag vessels engaged in exploratory fisheries also operate under conditions imposed on them through permits issued by AFMA.
These include conditions to implement our CMMs to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems.
We closely monitor and promote compliance with the conservation and management measures related to the protection of VMEs following a precautionary science based management approach.
To this end, Australia has a strong system of data collection procedures and protocols and collects a range of fishery data including fishing logbooks, verified catch data from Australia's catch disposal records, on board observers electronic monitoring and vessel monitoring system.
This information is correlated to inform stock assessments, management decisions, and to monitor compliance with international obligations, including those related to assessing the impacts of fishing activities on VMEs and target and non target species.
We provide all data required by RFMOs to which we are a party and provide that data to the FAO when requested to do so.
If you'd like a more fulsome summary of the actions that Australia has taken, I encourage you to read our report that will inform the Secretary-General report on bottom fishing.
Thank you for allowing me to provide this update.
Thank you so much for providing it, Delegate of Australia.
I will proceed directly with the speaker's list to Canada and then after I have China, Norway, and NGO 12, which I think is Amy.
I will close the speaker's list now unless there is any burning question that anybody has in order to allow for and somebody indeed has a burning question.
We will proceed then and in Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam you can hear me? Madam Moderator, fellow delegates, on behalf of Canada, I express thanks for the panel presentations and fruitful discussions from day one that continue today.
Thank you for the opportunity to learn more about best practices, progress, and innovations made by states and RFMOs to minimize and mitigate long term impacts of bottom fishing on VMEs.
Briefly, Canada continues to support and demonstrate strong commitment to the implementation of UNGA resolutions pertaining to the protection of VMEs.
These commitments remain the foundation of our approach to ensuring that deep sea fisheries are managed responsibly and in a manner that prevents significant adverse impacts on sensitive marine habitats.
Further, Canada's robust high seas enforcement operations ensure compliance with international law and conservation and management measures of RFMOs including those specific to the protection of VMEse.
As the primary coastal state in NAFO and given the ecological importance of Canada's Eastern continental shelf, Canada has continued to play a leadership role in the adoption of measures to protect Vietmese despite that doctor Kensington was not able to join us today and yesterday in person, she is online joining us, and I'm pleased that this exemplary work in NAFO with a closer look at potential impacts of climate change on Viemese could be shared with everyone at this workshop.
And lastly, the interventions, most recently they made by Iceland had me recalling a comment made yesterday and it was along the lines of if there is a new innovative approach or measure that we could be using to conserve and protect BMEs or just in the realm of bottom fishing, we would know about it, we would know about it quickly.
Um, so this just tells me that forums like this work and others and that our FMOs are talking to each other and are well connected.
So I personally just found this reassuring and important, and I think that these opportunities to share information and share best available practices should be continued.
So thanks again for the opportunity to participate and look forward to continued discussions.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Canada, and I give the floor to China.
Thank you, moderator.
Thank you, moderator.
It's a great pleasure to hear the other representatives.
For me personally, this workshop is really useful.
I'd like to offer some information on China.
Currently on high seas, China does not carry out bottom rolling.
We do not have such vessels, but China is ready to actively participate in relevant discussions.
I'm also pleased to see that some countries do practice bottom trolling and they are working actively to protect the bottom ecosystems, in particular in the background of climate change, making it this all the more crucial.
After listening to the ideas of our Spanish colleague, I'm really excited because five years ago, I published a paper on how we would practice fisheries management based on science.
One key information is Whether we have science and the quantity of science, which is not what matters.
What matters is that we have a process to ensure that science will be considered in decision making and management, and we would consider uncertainty and that all stakeholders are participating.
So our Spanish colleague has provided us with a very useful inspiration because in these resolutions, we stress decision making based on best available scientific information, but we're not fully exploring or considering whether it's possible for us to establish a certain system so that we can generate such best available scientific information and to make good use of such information.
So the emphasis is not on science, but on the process.
That's just my idea for our future exploration.
Also would like to thank our colleague from Iceland.
I did have some questions for Spain, but they've been covered by Iceland.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, China, and I give the floor to Norway.
Thank you, Madam Moderator, and thank you to all the panelists both today and yesterday for all those interesting interventions.
I have no questions, only some reflections.
Norway delivered a report to this meeting which explains some of the cooperation with the RMOs we are members of.
Since the last bottom fishing workshop, Norway has steadily developed the knowledge base for biodiversity in our oceans and refined the fisheries management now with more emphasis on fisheries control.
Mr.
Lopez from Spain gave some very interesting and useful insights that look very similar to the Norwegian thinking and practice.
I will not repeat our work in this.
But there's one core point or maybe dilemma here as already mentioned by several speakers, and that's on science and knowledge.
We Norwegian waters, we perform annual fisheries surveys and we are mapping the seafloor and this continues to be important deliveries for our active ocean management.
Our seabed mapping program, Mariano has mapped and analyzed close to 20% of the Norwegian economic zone.
The program started in 2005 that may sound like we make very little progress, but our seabed mapping program is very comprehensive.
But even for Norway, it's the fact that gaining ocean knowledge is very costly.
Modeling and predictions plays an important role.
I'm sorry, I'm just jumping a little faster.
Modeling and predictions plays an important role in scientific advice and assumptions on where to find the vulnerable habitats.
Here, artificial intelligence is enhancing these possibilities.
Along smaller parts of the Norwegtern Continental Shelf, we have artificial intelligence predicting models saying that we may have 209,000 deep water coral reefs.
Existing.
We haven't found them yet, but we have assumptions.
Are they likely to be there or not.
These have to be verified and that's very expensive.
This will take years, even for Norway.
I noted from the Secretary-General report to this meeting about other predictions, about the release of carbon from seafloor to the air caused by bottom fishing.
This is very interesting, but also need verification and that will also take time, maybe a very long time.
I remind myself the final words from Brin from Nav earlier today that work is ongoing, but we have to be realistic.
That's really true.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Norway.
I would then proceed and give the floor to someone referred to as NGO 12 on my screen.
I think that's you, Amy right back there.
Remind me, please or us rather of the full name of your organization.
Thank you.
Thank you, moderator and to the segment's presenters.
My name is Amy Baco Taylor.
I'm here representing the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative.
During this workshop, many panelists and delegates have emphasized the critical value of using the best available science to assess and mitigate the impacts of bottom fisheries in light of financial and logistical constraints.
To get back to what the distinguished representative ICEs mentioned in his intervention, peer reviewed science should be used as a basis for determining whether the science is the best available science.
Distinguished delegates have shared their work at RFMOs like the MPFC, so we wanted to make a brief observation regarding the work and discussions on identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems in that RFMO.
The process in the NFC for member states has been discussed, but I wanted to give the view of an observer and a scientist.
In the NPFC as was mentioned, VME records submitted by member states are used to establish and manage VME sites.
However, the process is not as simple for independent academic science, even when the data are already published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Observations collected independently by scientists using state of the art autonomous underwater vehicles, submersibles, and remotely operated vehicles, covering hundreds of kilometers worth of seabed, employing far more comprehensive and rigorous survey methods have been reported repeatedly since 2018 to the NPFC and have not been afforded any recognition or conservation action.
It is difficult to understand why unpublished observations collected by states such as those made using cameras covering areas of only 35 square meters of seabed per site are accepted as sufficient evidence of VMEs or lack of VMEs while peer reviewed scientific data is not.
We would welcome comments from the panelists or other delegates in the room on this and seek clarification of how to ensure that the best available science can be inclusive of rigorous science originating directly from scientists rather than member states and can be incorporated into the RFMO decision making processes.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Emmy.
There was a question in there.
I would maybe ask you to write it down, keep it in mind, if you don't mind and anybody else wanting to respond? This, of course, will be very welcome.
We can also keep that discussion going later on.
I would like to get to the bottom of the speaker's list unless you have something immediately.
No, that's okay.
I But the question was on the use of best available science.
What is best science? What are states using and could they be peer reviewed material from scientists to a greater extent? Now, I would then proceed to NTO four on my list and I believe that's the industry representative, the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations, if I'm not mistaken, please, you have the floor.
I You are not mistaken.
Thank you.
Is this working? Yes.
Notice.
You are not mistaken.
Thank you very much.
I wanted to make two quick reflections.
One in spurred by the previous just a comment that I don't understand the reference to science generated by member states.
Member states don't generate science.
They pay scientists and they fund scientist institutes to provide it.
In the case of Spain, for instance, which is what I wanted to say, Spain is a good example from the industry of what it's done, is there is an activity in the Southwest Atlantic, a lot of Spanish vessels involved, and a a need to create science to justify and to make sure that activity is sustainable.
And then it did send a vessel that is owned by the state through the Institute of Oceanography from Spain, which is more than 100-years-old.
That is what it did.
It's real scientists going down there mapping the examples.
I think Matt made good reference to it yesterday.
I don't mean this antation, but I think if we start criticizing scientific contributions, depending on the funding, I think we're going to have a blast here because we're going to have very opposed views.
Some of us think that tycoons should not be running the science that is based on it either and probably we are both wrong.
I think all science depends on the goodwill of scientists and not how the means to provide that science goes to them.
I think that's a very important issue that we need to say.
Again, my need to intervene was to say that we from think that the approach of Spain is an example.
It is true that the European Union then based its regulations on the Spanish effort.
That effort is called Nerda.
It was a very interesting campaign because it showed the two sides of what a state can do.
On one side, it went to an area where there is no RFMO and provided RFMO science, so to say, trying to give the same coverage to the activity.
The second part of that campaign was actually conducted in NAFO where it contributed with equal amount of mapping to the efforts of NAFO and those efforts are still the base together with Canada who collaborated of the decision making.
Yesterday, NFA was declared by the Secretary rightly so as a luxury and FMO.
Well, part of the luxury is having members like Canada and Spain who invest a lot of money and time and resources that are not always available.
More importantly, they've managed to find scientists, which I think is something that is very lacking fisheries scientists to do this effort.
Well, there are historical series there going for over 45 years.
I know very well my father was one of those scientists many years ago.
Those are very important efforts that are conducted by states and I think it should be like has been said here, that the role of states is very important because they are the conduct of the mandates of the General Assembly.
They are the ones who vote for it as well.
So I think it would be a little bit weird to say that they should not be conducting science.
I do believe, however, on peer reviewed science, and I do believe on the independence of scientists, no matter where the funding comes, they are the ones who have to decide if the funding comes with conditions attached, and if so, refuse it, whether it's public or private.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for your intervention.
And Now, Madam Moderator is in trouble because she had announced she would close the list and two people are asking for the floor.
I'm tempted to take those interventions.
I would ask you to keep it brief perhaps.
I will now give the floor to Japan, followed directly by the IUCN on 722 for the conference officers.
After which I will ask panelist sitting next to me to give his closing remarks for this panel.
Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you very much for moderator and I'm sorry to take again.
I just would like to add some information about our research.
As I mentioned, Japan as a member of NPOC conducted the research using able, but when we make the research plan, we will take into account the peer B loment which is the academic or some other members provided documents, then we conduct the research, then the result will be submitted was submitted to the NPLC The sciente NPLC scientific Committee investigates all information and taking into account the process which adopted by the NPLC and this process is following it's based on the FAO guideline.
So this is the situation in the NAPLC.
So thank you very much for giving me forward to explain and this information.
Thank you.
Thank you.
A please.
Thank you, Madam Moator.
Good morning, colleagues.
I just wanted to make a brief comment as a point of clarification.
I understood the previous speaker to be speaking about the importance of peer reviewed science, current peer reviewed science, not old peer reviewed science, both, and that while we Certainly, all data that is collected by whether it's state collected data, RFMO collected data, independent scientists collected data is valuable.
The peer review process is at the heart of the scientific method that we all agree is fundamental and the best available science is peer reviewed science.
Data transparency, funding for independent science is a critical point and it's something that is relevant to the General Assembly resolutions and to the IUCN resolution.
I think I'll close by saying thank you to all the scientists in the room and to those who work with them and support them.
Thank you very much for that, delegate of the IUCN.
On we go, as I announced, I would ask our distinguished panelists from Spain to give a few closing remarks.
Once again, thank you for being with us.
Thank you very much once again.
Just by way of concluding remarks, in making decisions, we shouldn't try to reduce protection of VMEs but rather we should choose the best available scientific evidence to help us decide and define the best possible decision making that will allow us to reconcile the fishing sector and maintaining biodiversity and adapting fisheries should not set limits on the measures, but the data needs to be updated and the measures also need to be updated.
For this, it's important to continue diving deeper in scientific knowledge wherever it comes from, as we heard, collecting it.
We need to think also not only about the environment, but any contribution that can be made in the quest for innovation because it allows us to reduce the impact, it we can have the best possible updates from the fishing sector as well.
As a last remark, we shouldn't forget the importance of the fishing sector itself and what it can contribute to this decision making process because it is one of the main beneficiaries and also one of the main parties to be affected by the status of the oceans because it is their way of life.
Thank you.
Excellent.
Very happy that you were able to be with us up here interior insights.
I also thank those who took on the challenge of offering some insights from national capacity, which I thought enriched the discussion.
Best available science or best available scientific evidence for sure is one of our recurring themes and that's very appropriate, obviously.
Now, I wish to thank the panelists, both of them for segment three.
We now turn to segment four, we will take a short technical break.
Why don't we take 5 minutes for everybody to be able to stand up if they need to while we get our panelists up here.
Thank you.
You shortly.
I went to a room this morning and I was trying to make sure it was hy.
It's just me.
Yes.
In the reports the country contribution or contribution.
There are.
So it will not be honest but available.
And do you well to work with.
Yes.
I Victoria someone sitting up here in person.
It's all right.
I can relax for a Delegates, now is a good time to take your seat back.
We will be starting in 1 minute.
Distinguished delegates, colleagues, friends, I can see some vivid discussions have continued during the technical break and that's excellent.
We have concluded Segment three and we now turn to Segment four entitled Focus on the Experience and Special Requirements of developing states 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 the three resolutions.
We will hear three presentations, two of which are prerecorded, followed by questions and interactive discussions as before.
We have just about 1 hour.
Now, the following panelists will participate in this segment.
Miss Esther das, coordinator of the GEF Deep Seas Project of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the FAO.
The title of her presentation is the Perspective of the Food and Agriculture Organization, including in the context of the Deep Sea Fisheries Project.
This is a pre recorded presentation that we will hear shortly, but from what I hear as there is online, and hopefully we'll be able to hear it if there are questions or statements relating to her presentation.
Secondly, we have Mr.
Eduardo Cefoia, head Advisor for International Affairs at Brazil's Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
The title of his presentation is the Perspective of Brazil in relation to the Impasse of Bottom Fisheries on climate change.
This again is a prerecorded presentation.
Last but not least, we have sitting here with us in person, miss Bran Van Golder, campaign Director for the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, the DSCC.
The title of her presentation is Lines in the Ocean, Deep Sea Fisheries Management through a cultural lens.
I would now wish to give the floor to our first panelist, miss Esther Hidas for her prerecorded presentation, which we will play for you now.
Good morning.
My name is Esther Hiddas.
I'm the project manager of the Common Oceans Deep Sea Fisheries Project, and I'm very pleased to join you through this prerecorded presentation for this workshop on addressing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long term sustainability of deep sea fisheries.
I'm especially happy to be the first speaker in this session that aims to address the special requirements of developing states.
So launching straight into my presentation, I first wanted to start by making a quick overview of this project, which is implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and executed by the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
And it has as partners, all the seven regional fisheries Management Organisations that have a mandate to manage deep sea fisheries, which include GFCM, NaF Nf and PFC, Cfmo.
You will also see Klar highlighted on the map, and this is because we do loosely informally collaborate with Kamar through this project.
In addition to the seven partners I already mentioned, we also have as partners the government body, NOA, the Science Advisory Body ICs and two private sector organizations, CO department.
In terms of the project time frame, we are actually past the halfway mark and we will be wrapping things up in May 2027.
The project objective is to ensure that deep sea fisheries are managed under an ecosystem approach with stocks at levels capable of maximizing sustainable yields and minimizing impacts on biodiversity with a focus on data limited stocks, deep water sharks, and vulnerable marine ecosystems.
And the three areas of work are to strengthen and implement regulatory frameworks, improve deep sea fisheries management, understand cross sectoral interactions.
But the fourth area of work that is really cross cutting across all the work that we do is to work and collaborate in partnership and in cooperation and coordination with even wider stakeholders beyond these partners to have sharing of knowledge, experiences, and good practices and bring forward the sustainable management of deep sea fisheries in the ABNJ in this manner.
So in terms of context for this presentation, I did want to emphasize that our project focuses on bottom fisheries in the ABNJ only.
And in this respect, this presentation is guided by paragraphs 84 and 85 of the international guidelines for the management of deep sea fisheries in the high seas.
Which were adopted in 2008 and under its special requirements of developing states, it says that FAS should assist developing countries in implementing these guidelines and the actions called for in UBA resolutions.
This should be in the form of technical assistance, training, scientific cooperation, particularly in the early stages of the fishery.
However, in reality, few ABNJ bottom fisheries are actually currently carried out by developing states.
Nevertheless, crew on board vessels are often from developing states.
Developing state members to RFMOs still need support to fully engage with RFMO Commission science and compliance meetings in relation to the effective management of bottom fisheries within that RFMO Developing states member to RFMOs may actually consider engaging in boneferies in the future, and all RFMO contracting parties, regardless of economic status, can benefit from technical assistance, collaborative learning, and cooperative initiatives.
So within this context, I wanted to first give a short overview of the activities of the project that have been addressing the special requirements of developing states.
These have included the development of a free eLearning course which is available on the FAO eLearning Academy website.
I have provided the QR code.
The course is called strengthening deep sea Fisheries Management in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
It covers an introduction to deep sea fisheries, international obligations and responsibilities for the management of deep sea fisheries, regional approaches to fisheries management, the role of states in deep sea fisheries management, in terms of national policy and legal considerations, and the role of states in deep sea fisheries management in terms of monitoring control, surveillance, and enforcement.
And so far we've had 265 people fully complete the course, meaning that not only do they go through the course, but they took the final exam and received their certificate, which is, as I mentioned, available to all participants.
Once this course was completed, we held a webinar that amongst other topics aimed to promote the eLearning course.
The webinar entitled Deep Sa Fisheries and the Management in the High Seas, an introduction and review of recent developments took place in May 2024, and we had over 250 participants join from 69 countries, many among them developing states.
We've also held training for observers in two regions for COA, CAPA, and a total of 45 participants were trained in these two workshops and the focus was on improving data capture, quality, and reporting.
Additionally, we've held trainings in collaboration with other organizations on promoting decent work conditions in fisheries.
For this, the project supported the participation of six people from four developing states and the course looked at international framework, gender, safety, and social protection issues.
The other course was on global ocean governance and topics.
Here, the Deep sea Fisheries Project supported ten participants from seven developing states to get up skilled over the course of a week on fisheries issues, environmental and biodiversity issues, marine spatial planning, blue economy, marine pollution and climate change.
We also held a research cruise in the Indian Ocean area, the COFA convention area.
This was an enormous task, took about two years to fully develop and it was delivered in collaboration with the EAF Benson program, Norway and COFA, and it took place in November to December last year.
And nine researchers and technicians of the 24 that were onboard the vessel were from developing states, and I believe they really benefited from being on board for those almost three weeks sharing their knowledge and also learning from others.
We developed also a digital deepwater shark app, and this app was developed to support specifically species identification of deepwater sharks in the Indian Ocean.
Which aimed to support faster, easier species level identification by observers, port officials, and any other users.
The development took a number of years.
Once we had a draft developed, we dedicated significant time to the review and trialing of the app, and this was carried out with observers in the training course that I mentioned previously for COA.
It was also carried out on board the Nansen crews with researchers and technicians.
Through this trialing, we were able to refine the app which is now finalized and published on the website of Lucid and I've provided the QR code there.
I should mention that this was also carried out in strong collaboration with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, among other partners.
Here I just provide some photos of this process of review and trialing and training of the Shark app.
We've also developed a technical forum, which is really a community platform which allows just about anyone to join.
And it hosts a library of technical documents mostly developed by the project.
It's collecting all the outputs that the project has developed over the years.
But it also collects additional outputs, materials, resources, publications from anyone who would like to contribute from the community that is available on this platform.
I really invite anyone and everyone to join.
We welcome new members to the platform.
But it certainly provides a forum for additional resources for developing countries.
That completes the projects activities that specifically addressed the requirements of developing states, but I would like to quickly go through other initiatives that the project has done which has benefited all RFMO contracting parties.
This has included supporting the implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management.
We organized a symposium in collaboration with NAPO and ICEs on applying the ecosystem approach to fisheries management in ABMJ.
I've provided you the QR code and the link to a dedicated website which actually hosts the full recording of the three days of the symposium, as well as virtually all the presentations that were made during the symposium.
So it's an incredible resource for collating challenges and proposed good ways forward for implementing EAF DCFs and we also followed up this symposium with a workshop, particularly targeting managers, excuse me, to further develop some guidance on implementing EAFM by Rs.
I should mention that should be able to be seen in a report that we are aiming to publish shortly.
We've been also supporting the application of the precautionary approach.
We held some workshops both global and regional level to support the operationalization of the precautionary approach, and we are currently underway with developing a guidance document which will be published in a technical paper hopefully by the end of this year.
We've been supporting the incorporation of climate change considerations by RFMs and this has been through direct support provided to full RFMOs to assess how climate change considerations could be incorporated into their work.
Then we held an online workshop to consolidate these findings and develop a click key lessons learned.
We've been supporting the assessment of data limited deep sea stocks.
This is an ICs led work to support the development and trialing of methodologies for the assessment of data limited deep sea stocks.
Once these have been completed, the methodologies will be shared by an open access platform on the ICs website.
This should be completed by quarter 12027.
We as part of the project, have been engaging with the private sector, recognizing the important technical and operational expertise held in the fishing industry.
What we've been doing is providing a forum for knowledge sharing and information exchange to address technical challenges in the sustainable management of deep sea fisheries.
This has been in the form of three workshops over the course of three years, tremendously successful and we've really been able to reach out to a large proportion of the key actors for deep sea fisheries in the ABNJ.
We've been assessing the socioeconomic value of deep sea fisheries because knowledge on this has been greatly lacking and we've been using two case studies for this, our Ponso in the Indian Ocean and to fish in the Antarctic region.
The publication on the right that you see there is in production and it should be available in the coming months, one or two months.
The key findings showed that deep sea fisheries value chains are global and complex.
There are small catches in comparison to other fisheries, but they have high economic value.
There are very good examples of environmental practices that reduce also impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems, pollution and many other aspects.
There is great commitment to decent work conditions, and these value chains provide specialized employment opportunities.
We've been attempting to improve reporting on deep water sharks globally.
I First, the project aimed to actually assess the impact of deep sea fisheries on deep water sharks, but we very early on realized that there's simply not enough data to do this.
So we have been identifying barriers to effective reporting on deep water sharks.
We've been supporting a risk and assessment analysis at global level to see which sharks are highest risk at highest risk, and we will be developing regional specific guidance for identification.
We've also been promoting cross sectoral cooperation.
Our activities have been specifically looking at interactions between deep sea fisheries and deep sea mining and also biodiversity conservation.
We had a workshop that looked at this from a technical perspective and also looked at how to mitigate any interactions through effective cooperation.
The report on this workshop will be available in the coming months.
In the meantime, I have provided here a QR code for a report that was carried out before the project started, which really looks at the key sectors that may have an interaction with deep sea fisheries.
We are also incredibly proud to share that we've been mapping deep sea fisheries in the ABNJ and we have now finally after quite a few years of engagement, been able to develop the first ever contemporary standardized view of the spatial extent or distribution and intensity or effort of bottom fishing in the ABNJ based directly on data provided by RFMOs.
The data is based on the most recent five years at one degree cell resolution.
And it shows that bottom fishing effort occurred in the last five years on average in 2.6% of the total area of all the RFMs plus cavar combined.
I should mention that at the resolution presented on the map, both fishing footprint and effort may actually be overestimated or overrepresented because of this one degree of cell resolution that it is presented at.
And so here are our maps currently shown in two D format, but we are very aware that this is not the best way to represent such information.
So we are actually working on presenting this information also in a three D format, and we will be hoping to publish these data in the coming months as well.
We really thank the collaboration of all RFMOs for this incredible cooperation for developing this map.
Finally, we've we've been supporting RFMOs to strengthen their communications, engagement, and outreach in relation to the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in the ABNJ.
And for this, we've been reviewing the websites of our partner RFMOs which showed that there is some room for improvement in terms of wider messaging on how RFMOs um contribute to global targets.
And so we held a workshop dedicated to this topic, and we are planning to have further follow up activities to strengthen this area of our follows.
With this, I wanted to close by saying that the work I have just presented represents the incredible amount of energy, effort, knowledge, experience and expertise of many, many people and colleagues, partners, and collaborators.
But I did want to specifically acknowledge my dear colleagues, doctor Anthony Thompson, doctor Keith Reed, Sarah Faganni and miss Amanda Santos, for all their fantastic work on this project.
I close by thanking Our donor, the Global Environmental facility for their fantastic financial contribution to allow all of this work to have happened.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much, Esther and for being online, which I very much appreciate.
If you are in Rome, it is already up tivo time.
Thanks again.
Just as a side note, I wanted to mention something which I have found to be evident from discussions at this workshop, and it I The 2009 FAO guidelines, the full title International guidelines for the management of deep sea fisheries in the high seas, there seems to be a lot of consensus on this as the quintessential literature on deep sea fisheries.
We all know, of course, that a lot has happened since 2009, but that's been my observation from here that there is consensus around working on the basis of it.
Now, I would then give the floor to our second panel.
Excellence, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I am Edouard headed who is eager to start presenting to us, Mr.
Eduardo Follia of Brazil, who was unable to attend in person, but on behalf of Brazil, you have the floor.
Excellencies, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Edouard Des Fa, He Advisor for International Affairs at the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of Brazil.
I would like to express my appreciation to Do Walls for bringing us together today and commend Iceland, our partner at the Blue Aquatic Food Coalition for moderating this important workshop.
Contributing to this work is an honor for me.
As global concerns over ocean health grow, bottom Trolley has become the focus of scrutiny in numerous fora, encompassing environmental climate related socioeconomic and food security concerns.
Given Brazil's current cop 30 presidency and the integration of aquatic food systems into the global climate agenda, I will focus my presentation on the debate on the potential and actual climate impact of or Trolley.
The growing interest in deep sea resources exploitation beyond fisheries has shed light on our limited knowledge regarding the impact of deep sea anthropogenic disturbances and the potential cumulative threats to seabed species, and ecosystems.
Polling is a primary driver of physical disturbance on the seabed, but the extent of its direct and indirect climate impact remains unclear.
Some scientific studies have identified bottom traling as a significant source of atmospheric carbon emission.
These studies are based on the finding that fishing gear displaces not only target species, but also organic and inorganic matter accumulated on the seafloor over potentially thousands of years.
In doing so, bottom trolling previous biological and chemical processes that convert carbon previously deposits in the seabed into carbon dioxide.
This process may be releasing significant amount of CO two into the atmosphere while diminishing the seaflo' capacity to serve as a long term carbon sink.
One study estimates that up to 60% of the released CO two reaches the atmosphere within nine years of the controlling event.
This process could also contribute to acidification of controlled zones and alterations in benefic traffic cycles could affect tplankton negatively influencing the ocean's overall efficiency in sequestering carbon through photosynthesis.
Recent studies have contested the assumption that bot trolling is a significant source of carbon emission.
When comparing trolled areas with untrolled areas, it has been observed that in at least 60% of cases, there was no significance difference in the amount of carbon stored.
They also contend that extra polling findings from localized studies to global scale leads to high levels of scientific uncertainty, which policymakers should consider with caution.
Another climate related concern regarding bottom trawling is the intensive use of fossil fuel.
In fact, fossil combustion for vessel propulsion is the primary source of greenhouse gas emission in wild capture fisheries.
The global fishing fleets consists of more than 4.5 million vessels, which produce a This is a summative 0.5% of total global G emissions.
In this realm, what trawling stands out for its high fuel intensity and fuel is consumed mainly during fishing operations rather than during transit as it's observed in other fishing methods.
The energy intensity performance of trawlers varies considerably, but studies indicate that capture of flat fish species by bottle trawling can require up to seven times more fuel then fishing with nets or porin and others indicate that the average fuel use intensity, it means litters of fuel per ton of fish captured for crustacean of seabed carbon stocks.
It's therefore essential to integrate the debate on bottom controlling footprint into the broader debate on fisheries mitigation and adaptation and aquatic food systems transformation as a whole.
In this debate, the central role bottom trolling place in global aquatic food production cannot be disregarded.
It accounts for 25% of wild seafood providing livelihoods for hundreds of thousands of workers and their families and securing food and nutrition for millions, for us, including At the same time, we should always bear in mind that fisheries are among the most vulnerable sectors to climate change.
The IPCC highlights that the small scale fisheries, livelihoods and jobs are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change in the oceans, also recognizing that climate change impacts exacerbate inequalities already experienced by many fishing communities, particularly by women in fisheries and mariculture and indigenous people.
And climate debates must also recognize the significant advancements in bottom trawling management implemented over the past decades to mitigate its environmental footprint.
Like in Brazil, many countries may have adopted measures such as limitation of number of vessels and capacity in the sector, equipment to reduce by catch and nets engineered for reduced seafloor contact and friction, also revision of closed area restriction of fishing zones, and operational depth, and measures for fuel saving by reducing vessel speed and lay.
In the Brazilian context, I should also highlight the participatory processes established to regulate and manage bottom trawling fisheries, which involves the active participation of local communities and give special attention to the needs and labor conditions of our artisanal and small scale fisheries.
To incentivize reflection and stimulate debate, I'd like to offer some points for consideration.
I frequently hear colleagues said that the shortcomings in bottom trawling could be overcome through effective management.
I believe we all agree that ideally management should be evidence based and supported by robust data, strong regulatory frameworks and rigorous enforcement.
Furthermore, policymakers and industry stakeholders should integrate and that ecosystem based approach into monitoring processes, always prioritizing the protection of sensitive marine habitats.
While theoretically sound and correct, this perspective often overlooks real world realities and constraints.
Poor management should not be viewed as the root cause of bot trawling deficiencies, but rather as the consequence of limited human and financial resource faced by most worldwide, as well as the lack of profitable alternatives for trawling in many fishing communities.
Proper management is there a for only part of the solution.
A second point of consideration is that we cannot limit our debate to sector specific solutions.
In fact, many solutions for the shortcomings and deficiencies of bottle trawling will become from outside the industry and we should remain open to these external innovations.
It's also important to acknowledge that the fishery sector is not the sole stakeholder in the debate over the regulation and management of boton fisheries.
Several multilateral processes outside the UNFSA and their FMOs frameworks are proving critical to the future of battling.
Please allow me to provide a few examples.
The International Maritime Organization is advancing towards the objective of reaching net zero greenhouse emissions by 2050.
A central pillar of its transition strategy is the accelerated uptake of near zero GHG fuel technologies and energy sources.
In fact, new IMO regulations are stimulating the maritime sector to invest in the infrastructure and technologies necessary for decarbonization Driving innovation includes energy saving technologies and the deployment of electric, hydrogen, and biofuel based propulsion systems as energy transition requires a diverse portfolio of solutions adapted to the specific national circumstances of member states.
Many countries represented in this workshop would share advances in vessel decarbonization.
Last April, for example, Brazil, corn ethanol become the first maritime compatible field to have its low carbon footprint recognized by the IMO.
We also have a pilot project in the country underway for hydrogen propulsion and vessel electrification.
The fishing sector stands to benefit considerably from the technologies, equipment innovation, and alternative fuels currently being developed for the shipping sector.
International shipping, one should remember accounts for approximately 2% of global greenhouse emissions releasing nearly 1 billion tons of C two annually through the combustion of fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, the global fishing fleets accounts for an additional 0.5% significant figure that the sector cannot ignore or neglect.
To accelerate the energy transition of fishery sector, it's important to establish structured sectoral processes following in this footsteps of the IMO.
Because failure to secure the sustainability of bot controlling will inevitably lead to conservation measures being imposed by FOA external to the UNFSA and RFMOs frameworks.
The case of sea mount ecosystem serves as a pertinent example.
The 2021 United Nations Second World Ocean Assessment identified bot controlling as the primary threat to these habitats.
In the same vein, the CMS COP 15 held last March in Brazil raised the debate on the impact of bottle fisheries on sea mount ecosystems and the resolution was, in fact, adopted requiring action to restrict deep sea trawling and other practices deemed detrimental to sea mounts.
This topic also falls within the scope of the BNJ agreement, given that the BNJ mandates to develop parameters for environmental impact assessment and maritime protected areas.
The fishery sector now has a additional incentive to advance scientifical research and close knowledge gaps regarding the environmental and climate impacts of bottom trawling.
I would also recall that last September, the World Trade Organization Agreement on fisheries subsidies entered into force by targeting state support and subsidies that f overfishing and overcapacity, it aims to eliminate economic incentives for unsustainable fishing.
This agreement then places environmental sustainability at the very heart of the international trade policy, moving beyond our traditional focus on market distortion.
With the reception of the agreements negotiations, we must remain mindful of the sustainability challenges posed by each fishing modality and their environmental externalities.
In light of these examples, I turn now to the multilateral climate agenda.
T your delegates, under UN FO triple C negotiations, The space afforded to aquatic food systems remain limited, but fisheries and aquaculture are featured in important implementation processes, including the global goal on adaptation, the Charmalsik joint work on agriculture and food security, and the ocean and Climate Change Dialogue.
The Green Climate Fund and other multilateral funds are investing increasingly in aquatic food production projects, recognizing that fisheries and aquaculture can be nature based solutions to climate change.
At CP 30 held last November in Brazil, aquatic food took center stage in the climate action agenda for the first time.
The action agenda is the pillar of the climate convention that mobilized civil society, private sector, and international partners committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement.
By positioning aquatic food and bio input production as climate solutions, the action agenda acts as an accelerator for successful pilot projects within the fishing sector by facilitating technology exchange, connecting initiatives with capacity building and technology transfer resources, and providing roadmaps for scaling up innovative and successful initiatives.
Therefore, the action agenda offer national fisheries agencies and RFMOs a framework to continue the debate set in this workshop.
It serves, for example, as a suitable platform to showcase concrete climate solutions for bottle controlling and drive collaborative efforts towards efficient fleet energy transition.
Currently, less than 1% of global climate finance is directed towards fisheries and aquaculture.
The sector obviously requires significantly more funding, given that over 500 million people worldwide depend on aquatic foods for their livelihoods.
This figure underscore the need for greater sectoral engagement in climate negotiations and implementation processes.
I conclude my presentation by encouraging continued debate on the footprint of cotton trawling and its integration into the broader global climate debates on aquatic food systems transformation.
I thank you very much for your attention.
Excellencies, dear.
Ladies and gentlemen.
As the moderate Secretariat to convey my warm thanks to Mr.
Eduardo Cefa speaking on behalf of Brazil on behalf of Brazil.
I think it's understandable that the most recent host of the climate Cop chooses to focus on the climate change aspects here.
And of course, we have heard about the climate change aspects from others throughout.
I think Norway previously referred to potential carbon emissions, for instance, from the seabed, if I wasn't mistaken.
But on we go and I now wish to give the floor to our third panelist.
Miss Bormann Golder, you have the floor.
Thank you very much.
I can feel lunchtime and expectation of a World Cup semifinal building in the room.
I promise not to try and keep you too long.
But Kira Cato, thank you very much, the moderator and Doles for inviting me to speak today.
Before I start, I just want to recognize the keepers and guardians of indigenous and traditional knowledge who are in this room today and especially those from states across the Pacific who will hear themselves referenced in much of my presentation.
I I'm sitting here today because when submitting the panelists nominations to Dos, the Deep see Conservation Coalition suggested the addition perhaps of an indigenous panel for this meeting.
We made that suggestion because in the 20 years since UGA resolution 60 1105 was adopted, the voices, the knowledge, and the values recognized as core to ocean governance, fisheries management and conservation negotiations has evolved significantly.
In particular, the knowledge and contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities to the discussions of resource management and marine protection have become a feature of UN, regional and national conversations in a way that was probably not imagined 20 years ago.
While UNGA sustainable fisheries resolution text on bottom fisheries and related RFMO measures and noticeably absent references to the traditional knowledge and interests of indigenous and coastal peoples.
The reality is that in multiple states that are members of both, the recognition and application of indigenous knowledge along So, of indigenous knowledge, alongside modern science is today the norm.
At the IUCN World Conservation Congress in October of last year and at the CMS cop 15 earlier this year, the voices of indigenous organizations and states with strong traditional knowledge references were heard without resistance, alongside those bringing modern best available science to the negotiation and consultation on CM resolution text.
Yesterday, the representative from China asked whether the knowledge of indigenous populations counts as best available science in the context of these discussions.
The response, and I don't want to misrepresent the intent of either the question or the response, was a very technical description of best available science, processes, and standards is distinct from stakeholder consultation with indigenous peoples and others that was described as difficult to bring into analytical processes.
Not unrelated, yesterday afternoon, the representatives from the Philippines referenced the rights and interests of local and coastal communities and decision making around high seas protection and sustainable use, citing the connectivity of species, processes and impacts between the high seas and coastal waters as a critical reference.
There is little doubt that the contemporary pressures on today's oceans resources, overfishing, destructive fishing, fishing, pollution, climate change, have made that connectivity of rights and interests of indigenous and local communities much more relevant to the conversations in this room than they perhaps were 20 years ago.
Both of those exchanges yesterday reflected the evolution of thinking and positioning of knowledge and rights in the ocean governance conversation over recent years and they reflect why the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition suggested that an Indigenous engagement panel would be relevant to our discussions here this week.
As a non indigenous ocean advocate from Artero New Zealand, I am very aware that one of the central reference points for any and all ocean discussion in my home country is mataranari, the comprehensive knowledge system, cultural practices, and worldviews of the Maori people of Artea, inclusive of traditional environmental science, traditional navigation knowledge, and Tao, the language.
It is a way of seeing the ocean and its value that today sits alongside the exploration discovery, analysis, conclusions, and peer reviews exemplified by the best available science that doctor Barco Taylor shared with us yesterday.
It is a relationship with the discoveries and pathways laid by ancestors to recognize and respond to the dynamics and behaviors of the ocean and the exploration and discoveries of scientists like doctor Barco Taylor and others in deep sea submarines can sit comfortably side by side.
I'm also aware in speaking today that the relationship between indigenous peoples governments and NGOs are not always a straight line.
In New Zealand, one of the largest deep sea fishing companies is indigenous or Ewe owned.
A number of their vessels are trawling on sea mounts on the high seas, the very features that I work to protect.
Their representatives sit on the government delegation or industry observers at RFMOs to defend their quota over implementation of protection measures.
It was in light of those realities, that the DSSC thought the question of indigenous knowledge, worthy of interrogating here this week.
Whether it is time for modern science and indigenous knowledge systems to sit side by side in these UNGA resolution discussions and by extension, RFMO measures, specifically in relation to UNGA resolution text calling for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems, including sea mounts from destructive fishing practices.
This map is how many of us in this room see the ocean space today.
It is the world ELS created, defined by territories national and RFMO that are regulated, exploited, protected within jurisdictional lines.
A world of lines drawn on the ocean to make it more manageable, perhaps.
Some describe this as an objective, balanced view of the world, the lines neatly assigning responsibility and authority for regulation and decision making.
A Maori academic in New Zealand has dismissed these lines as artificial, writing that instead we should all be thinking more like a fish.
Even sea months, those tens of thousands of extraordinary underwater features that yesterday, cat, Savannah and Amy showed us, are today mapped.
It's been calculated they cover over 21% of the ocean floor.
Over these features, we can place fishing effort, we can place the tracks of migratory species.
The three dimensional mapping of our ocean is extraordinary.
The collective nature of UNGA resolution language and RFMOs has in many ways been and is being written by maps like these lines and identified features in the ocean that governments and resource users apply to negotiation of their quota allocations, the design and implementation of management measures, and the authority over compliance.
They are by design and implementation territorial.
But the reality is that within these territorial boundaries, there exists different perspectives.
Let's take sea mounts as an example.
For scientists, they are, and I'm keeping this short, biologically and ecologically important.
They support deep sea species and habitats.
They're vital to feeding, breeding and nursery areas, oceanic circulation, and nutrient cycling.
For bottom shawl industry, it's a bit different.
Sea mounts and this is a direct quote from a New Zealand fishing industry company's website, Sea mounts offer predictable concentrated areas to deploy targeted fishing gear such as bottom shawls.
But there are other views of the ocean that are worth considering as we sit here today.
This one is a stick chart from micronesia.
Onto the palm fibers are bound small stones and shells plotting the islands and atolls and sea mounts of an area in the Pacific Ocean.
Each line of the chart is manipulated to represent the reflection, refraction, and wave actions.
Straight lines for currents and bent bands for swells.
It is created as a view from both high above and deep below the surface of the water.
Far from being crude, this is a complex simulation of knowledge.
Yes, today these maps are often displayed in art galleries and museums of the world, but they are not just beautiful abstractions.
Much like voyaging star charts or the song lines of whales that generations of Polynesian voyagers have followed across vast ocean areas.
They are shaped by generations of ocean knowledge.
It is telling that these maps were never taken on board a boat.
Instead, they were memorized and carried forward through generations.
The ocean interests of indigenous peoples have often been referenced to fishing and food security.
But above and beneath that interest are the layers of cultural values and knowledge that have been largely absent from our conversations in this room as we debate whether it is acceptable to pursue a form of fishing that the scientists in the room tell us will inevitably cause significant adverse impacts or accept the ability of one or two RFMO members who are also UNGA members to consistently deny best available science to support one or two boats to pursue that destruction.
So let's look at that other view.
For the Kanak people of New Caledonia, sea mounts are the resting place of their elders.
For New Zealand Madi, they represent beacons to guide departing spirits home to Hawaii.
For the peoples of many Pacific Islands, they carry cultural history and memory.
Indigenous Australians, Mari and Pacific peoples hold close the intergenerational responsibility that they have to look after the ocean.
Tangaroa, for Mari, sea country for indigenous Australians, for past and future generations.
For many indigenous people, sea mounts are not simply features or good places to fish.
They are tied to creation stories, spirits and Tana treasured species.
Indigenous perspectives view the deep sea and sea mounts not as empty, exploitable voids, but as sacred, interconnected realms and ancestral homes.
Bottom trawling when viewed through their cultural lens is an act of ecological destruction that violates cultural responsibilities of stewardship and threatens regional food security.
Yesterday, we heard from our scientists compelling evidence of the presence of vulnerable marine ecosystems on all sea mounts ever studied.
More soberingly the inevitability of the significant adverse impacts that bottom trawling will have on those seam ecosystems.
That destruction of sem habitats and diminished connectivity by bottom trawling is the norm, not the exception we were told.
That brings the values and interests of indigenous and local communities, I would suggest into stark focus.
The application of indigenous values to RFMO management of sea mounts, we are seeing an evolution in narratives and action across multiple oceanscapes.
This example is an example of the Bai Se Mount MPA off the coast of Canada and I apologize to the Haida Nation for my inability to pronounce the name of this in their native language.
I asked Claude to give me a pronunciation.
He was not able and the one that I could find, I definitely was not going to attempt with any degree of respect.
This area was protected by the Haidn Nation in 1997, and not jointly protected with Canada until 2008.
That shows that the traditional protection of this area came first and held strong until the government, the state, recognized the importance of that protection.
It is closed to all bottom contact fishing to protect vulnerable and unique cement ecosystems, ecosystems that the Haiden Nation calls supernatural one looking upward.
Well, further to that is the example, I realize not of an RFMO but of the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement, COFA, widely recognized as a landmark framework.
It explicitly requires the use of both scientific and indigenous knowledge and guarantees Arctic indigenous peoples the right to participate in its implementation.
It is the first multilateral legally binding international Ocean Agreement that places indigenous knowledge on equal footing with Western science.
Indigenous perspectives are integrated into the precautionary approach to fisheries and ecosystem management.
Indigenous peoples organizations, most notably the Inuit Circumpolar Council, actively participate in decision making and negotiations.
This statement from the ex president of Palau, and of course, Palau was one of the leading states in 2006 when 60 105 was negotiated and secured, wrote this earlier this week at the start of the ISA meeting in Kingston.
He wrote it not just as the ex president, but as a now traditional leader in Palau.
He says, To us, the deep ocean is a place of belonging connection.
It is not a repository of minerals or I would say fish, waiting to be extracted for short term gain.
It is part of our cultural landscape and collective memory.
When we speak about protecting the deep ocean, we are not only speaking about biodiversity, we are speaking about protecting somewhere that has shaped our understanding of who we are.
Indigenous participation in regional fisheries management organizations has been limited.
Traditionally, as stakeholders during consultation as non government observers or inclusion within national delegations.
But other global governance frameworks, they have been included and recognized in a much more significant way.
We have the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples from 2007.
We have COFA established in 2021.
In 2024, the CBD Cop 16 Article eight J subsidiary body was established.
The BB and has been ratified.
Here we are in 2026 with multiple lenses through which to look at sea mounts and activities in the deep sea.
But with those lenses comes the opportunity for new approaches, not a delimitation of traditional knowledge in modern science, but rather a pairing.
We can build bridges between indigenous knowledge systems and fisheries science.
We compare knowledge and service of collaborative fisheries management and decision making and we can recognize that different values and knowledge systems can exist in fisheries management.
I think today there is no better example than the BB&J agreement and the guiding principles and paragraphs there that relate specifically to the recognition and use of traditional knowledge and not just the knowledge, but the views and perspectives that they will bring to the implementation of the BB&J.
In 2026, indigenous people's knowledge, understanding in connection with the Deep seas is no longer unknown, but it is under represented in the discussions of RFMOs and in past UNGA resolutions.
At this workshop and this year of review reflects on its 20 year history and considers the relationship of UNGA bottom fisheries resolutions with the next generation of BB&J led ocean governance that lies ahead.
The DSSC urges states to seek out and integrate indigenous knowledge and cultural values into the wording and ambition of the 2026 resolution language and with that language to better integrate traditional knowledge and values into the protection of sea mounts and other VMEse.
While the core text for bottom fisheries will remain, I know it's not a blank page, the past 20 years have seen associated independent species, climate change, overfishing, and by catch added to the ambition and expectation of the resolution.
In 2026, might it be possible for the UNGA bottom fisheries text to add indigenous knowledge and values alongside best available science as critical reference points for both VME protection and effective management of fish stocks.
Kiara.
Thank you, Brown for this very interesting presentation and to all three presenters.
We don't have a lot of time and I will need to let the interpreters go at 1:00 P.M.
But with everyone's indulgence, I'm wondering if it will be possible to stay here until a maximum of 1:10 in order for us to have reactions or questions from the floor.
With that, I open the list of speakers.
And Yeah, we are checking if this will be possible.
It's, of course, late in this morning and I realize everyone is hungry.
If there isn't anything burning, we can also, of course, have discussions later on.
I do see that the Russian Federation has requested the floor.
Please go ahead.
Microphone, please.
Do you hear me? Thank you.
I'll be brief so as not to take too much time.
First off, thank you, Madam Moderator, for your efforts in engaging in this dialogue among stakeholders on this important matter of fisheries.
We also thank the delegates that spoke yesterday and spoke today with presentations.
Allow me to voice some general comments.
Okay.
Questions of the sustainable use of fish resources remains relevant in the international agenda.
The precautionary approach is also important and ecosystems are also important considering the state of the habitats and the recovery of ecosystems.
The statement of Brazil noted that in some cases, this was lacking in the fisheries.
In turn, I would like to point out the importance of striking a reasonable balance between national economies and the interests in protecting the marine environment.
One of the delegates yesterday underscored the fact that ensuring the sustainability of fisheries largely hinges on the quality of management.
As we know in 1995, the fish stocks Agreement stipulates that the regulation of stocks is done primarily at the level of regional fisheries management organizations.
The statement of another delegate speaking from an RFMO about fisheries and also about assistance to developing countries in this area.
Uh, shows the striving of the world community to maintain global biodiversity.
Furthermore, as far as we know, regional organizations are taking measures to address various fish stocks in various regions of the world oceans.
So it's not possible to speak about a unified approach to all RFMOs.
However, scientifically driven management and considering the needs of developing states, in our view, these are key elements to achieving sustainable fisheries.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you very much for those remarks and I appreciate the attempt to be brief.
I also have the Philippines on my list of speakers, which I am now closing.
You will need to speak in English.
I presume you were going to anyway, that's fine.
I would then thank our interpreters that will be leaving shortly.
Philippines, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam moderator.
We would like to provide a comment to the presentation of the FAO, especially we note and underscore on the point that the crew on board fishing vessels engaged in bottom fisheries are often from developing states like the Philippines.
In relation, the Philippines recognizes seafaring and fishing as major sectors of our maritime workforce.
We recently called them migrant fishers.
He places great importance in ensuring that our migrant fishers are adequately protected through robust labor standards.
With this, recently, just last month, our Department of Migrant Workers together with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources has formally institutionalized the implementation standard deployment contracts that serve as legally binding employment agreements for Filipino migrant fishers employed on board foreign flag fishing vessels.
These contracts are non negotiable, minimum standards on wages, insurance coverage, working and living conditions, and repatriation and other welfare provisions.
The Philippines believe that strong labor protection mechanisms, together with effective implementation and international cooperation are essential to promoting decent work and safeguarding the rights and welfare of onboard crew in the maritime and fishing industries.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for sharing the human perspective of this panel's topic, the developing states perspective.
I warmly thank the interpreters and also the conference officers who have kindly agreed to stay a few more minutes.
I don't have anybody else on my list of speakers right now, what I would propose is that we give our panelists the chance to make extremely brief closing remarks.
If that's okay with you, Ben, I would ask you to go first.
I'm not sure I have anything to add.
Actually, I appreciate that that you have made your case and that's it.
I think we all appreciate the opportunity to get lunch.
Would the FAO from afar have anything to share or have they also made? She's also indicated that she has no additional remarks to make at this time.
That's it.
Colleagues, everything has been set.
I truly appreciate this discussion.
It has been interesting.
I also appreciate the attempt of the delegate of Iceland during the previous panel to mainstream the developing state aspects into our discussion and I encourage everyone to do the same for the remaining panel, the fifth panel that we will have this afternoon.
Now, this panel is entitled Opportunities and Challenges.
And I'm looking very much forward to it.
Counting on you to come here and participate in this forward looking discussion.
We have a great lineup of panelists.
Before I conclude, I would ask Secretariat if they have anything to announce at this point in time.
Seems they do.
Very quickly, just making sure that everyone is in the room.
Just to mention that the ICSP 19 report has been circulated via email and is also available on the Delos website for comments.
I think the deadline for comments is the 22nd of July.
I think that's the one thing I want to say.
Thank you.
Excellent.
Thank you, everyone.
See you at 3:00 P.M.
Thank you.