 Felly, yn gweithio i fynd i'n ei ddweud o'i bob gweithio gael ysgol yma o'r Slyw Llywodraeth Cymru, rwy'n hynny ym mwyaf i'r wych o'r ysgol ym Mhwyllgor Rhaid Ysgol. Felly, dyma'n cael ei wneud o'r Slyw Llywodraeth Cymru, yr ystyried cyfnodi o'r regwel Cymru, gyda ni'n mhwylwch o'r cyflwyno cyflwyno, oherwydd mae'n cyflwyno cyflwyno arweithio â'r ddechrau, maen nhw'n cyflwyno cyflwyno arweithio â'r ddechrau sydd yn ddod o'r ddweud. Mae'r ffordd maen nhw'n ddweud, maen nhw'n gweld mwyllwch â'r ddechrau, mae'r ddechrau hynny yn gyflwyno cyflwyno arweithio â'r ddechrau, arweithio â'r ddechrau. Mae'r unig arnynt yn credu y rhan o'r unionid o'r hunain a'r unig ar y dda i'r unig ar gyfer mae'r unig yn dda i'r unig ar y dda i'r unig ar y dda i'r unig ar gyfer mae'n dda i'r unig ar gyfer. A'r unig o gwbl oen rhan o'r cyffredinol, unrhyw o'r cyffredinol, dyma o'n ei dŷl yn ddechrau sydd ar gyffredinol y ffrindwyr ar y Tyfn portfolioll gwahanol. Felly wych yn gwneud Arwis, yn cyffredinol yn y cyffredinol ac pan drw'n cyffredinol am yr unig o bwrdd yn shouldnoedd y Gweithgaf oedd. I promised Anca that I was going to make a disclaimer in saying that whatever we say here in our personal capacity, and that doesn't reflect the opinion of our governments unless safe otherwise. Is that fair? Yes, thank you so much. So, if I ask you have the microphone, do you mind introducing yourself, Anca, briefly? First of all I would like to thank you very much for this invitation and for this yn ysgol. Benjawd a'r ddw i. Ac i'n ysgol yn ysgol yng nghymru. Mae'n golygu, mae'n gweithio'n ddiwedd i ysgol yna ym 7 oed yn y cyfrifoldaeth. A fe ddim yn gweithio'r ysgol yng Nghymru. So mae'n gweld ychwanegi am ysgol yng Nghymru ond byddwch ymddangos yn ysgol yng Nghymru yn ysgol yng Nghymru. I was very happy to see that the transition, the ecological transition has been also translated on my badge so I'm very happy to tell you that I'm from a ministry of ecological and inclusive transitions. So we translated this term, which is very important with the theme that we are developing today on the economy. I'm here to share with you also the French positions in the negotiations within the future treaty, but also to give you some ideas about the French priorities for the G7 environment, which will take place in France this year, and also to ensure you that the ocean is on the political agenda for France and also for the European Union, by the way. So maybe I will give you back the floor. Thank you, Anker. That's a very useful introduction. Thank you very much, Anker. Next to Anker we have Dr Ekaterina Popova, who doesn't mind being called Katia. Could you please break lead with yourself as well, Katia? Okay, I'm a scientist, and I'm an ocean and climate modeler from National Oceanography Centre, and I'm here to give you a lot of scientific evidence of which part of the high seas is connected to which part of the coastal zone on what time scale, but unfortunately I have not a clue of what this legally pointing agreement may look like, so I'm here to learn. Thank you very much, Katia. I'll translate that later. William Kennedy is the same as well, please. Sure. My name is William Chen. I am a Canadian Research Chair in Global Ocean Sustainability and Global Change. I'm also a Director of Science for the Nippon Foundation UBC Nervuses Programme, which tasks to predict future oceans. I'm a colleges and fisheries scientist by training, and my work focuses a lot on looking at how climate change affects the oceans and fisheries. I've been doing a lot of work of trying to look at what the future ocean would be like using the scenarios and models, and I work quite closely with some of the National Science Policy Forum. For example, I'm now coordinating the authors for the IPCC special reports for the oceans and the biosphere under the changing climate. In the context of this meeting, in collaboration and support by IED and SM, we have been working on looking at the changing high seas and fisheries and the climate change and how some of the future potential governance and conservation measures in the high seas may affect and benefit coastal states. Are we talking more about that in the panel discussion too? Excellent. Thank you so very much. As you can see, we're very privileged to have such a distinguished panel with us today. Just a bit of myself, I was trained as a marine biologist myself, and I started my career as a marine biologist for fisheries scientists, but I ended up being an economist, unfortunately or unfortunately. Also, I've worked for my government extensively in the past as well, so hopefully I'll play a moderator role in terms of bridging the science and policy here in this panel in particular. Before I get back to Katia and William, can you succinct me, Anker, back to you? How many of you know about the BB&J process, about the high seas process now? Can I assume the rest not necessarily understand or have a better understanding of the process? Here's the challenge for you, Anker. Can you briefly summarise about the BB&J process, maybe in two or three minutes? Thank you. So, I will try to summarise. Well, as you know, I will start with the Paris Agreement in 2015, because I think it's quite important to remind that during the negotiations we have had a lot of difficulties to have in this agreement, the term ocean, why we didn't handle to have terms like water, we managed at the very end to have the term ocean in the preambler part of this agreement, and even if for some they consider it as a detail, I think it's quite important message to remind this, and we refer to the fact that we really encourage all states to take concrete measures for the preservation and the sustainable use of the ocean ecosystem. And now I will arrive at the end of 2015 before the conclusion of the Paris Agreement. We have had an anger resolution in September 2015. We have obtained a mandate at the level of the UN to develop a legally binding agreement for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, from which we have the acronym BB&J. And this mandate has been a result of many years of discussions before, I think if I'm not wrong, because I arrived in this process only in 2016, but before the discussions on the development of a new instrument lasted more than six or eight years, I think before through working groups, preparatory work, and the idea, not the idea or the mandate that we received, is to develop a new instrument that will complement and will be mutually supportive with the provisions that are already under unclos, which is, as you know, the Constitution of Oceans, which is the treaty that the mother convention, we are saying this in French, and we are supposed to develop an implementing agreement of this unclos convention. So there are four pillars of negotiation in this respect. We have a pillar that aims to establish a global framework for the ABMTs. It was area-based management tools, including MPAs. The second one is also to establish a general framework for the impact assessment, environmental impact assessment in AB&J. The third one regards the establishment of an access regime for marine genetic resources and the benefit sharing arising from the utilization. And finally, the last pillar regards the capacity building and the transfer of technology mainly for developing countries. And we have also an additional one, cross-cutting issues, which relates to the whole structure of the agreements. Excellent. Well done, A-plus for that. Angad, you've done extremely well. I think so very much, Angad. That was really an excellent summary of the AB&J process, which is by biodiversity, conservation and sustainable use of resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. And then I think one of the biggest challenges I face, as I got involved at the later stage as well myself, is persuading countries such as mine, every trail from a very small country and other LDCs as well, to actively engage in the process. And of course the obvious response was, is it too remote to matter? We're talking about beyond 200 nautical miles. We can hardly ever exploit or utilize our resources on a mile or two from our coastal line. And why should we engage or why should we be interested in areas beyond national jurisdiction? And for me, with a slight marine biology background, what understands the interconnectedness of the ocean system, I immediately run into, I went to Catiapol Health. And I said, can we demonstrate that the high seas or the health or the resilience of the high seas do in fact matter for coastal ecosystems, the resilience and the livelihoods of coastal communities as well. And that's where I think, Catiapol, I do like to take the opportunity to congratulate Catiapol by the way. We've just submitted a paper to the Journal of Marine Policy, which is just accepted as well. And congratulation on that, Catiapol. So can you tell our audience, Catiapol, if you don't mind, in brief about the work that you did on ecological connectivity between the high seas and coastal waters, and why the high seas matter essentially for coastal communities, Catiapol. Some of you are absolutely right. When we're looking at the high seas from coastal perspectives, the high seas seem to be very remote and kind of a beating consequential. At the first glance, nothing to be further from the truth because we have growing scientific evidence coming from various directions that, ecologically, the high seas are very much connected to the coastal waters. And key lines of evidence come probably from two major directions. The first direction is migratory nature of a lot of marine species who spend some time in the high seas, some time in the coastal zone, and very often they migrate through corridors. So if you disturb, say, key points along those corridors, so species which come immediately to mine in this respect is, you know, absolutely iconic, like sharks or laser-backed turtles, which have not only socio-economic significance, but cultural significance as well. So that is one line of evidence which keep coming and kind of keep coming fast and furious with development of new tracking technologies. And another line of evidence which is kind of more my kind of native area of expertise, let's say, it's a connectivity through ocean circulation. So we all know that ocean currents do exist, but people don't often realize how fast and vigorous these ocean currents are and how tightly they connect high seas to the coastal zones and on what short time scale. I mean, we're talking about if you imagine just throwing millions of imaginary rubber ducks from every single areas of high seas, in about one month's onward you will begin to catch those rubber ducks at the coastal zones. So, and not all high seas are made equal. So some are more important, some areas are much more connected than the other, and if some you would like to show that map, we built one map as an example. So if we consider throwing those yellow ducks and sending people catching them up after six months, how many countries will be connected to each point of the high seas, which will give you an example of why you should not be disturbing anything with potential negative impacts? No, thank you very much, Katja. I'm not sure about colour scheme. It looks better there if you come and have a look here, but I don't know if something's not right on the screen. Nonetheless, I think it was very important. I like the analogy that they use about the use of rubber ducks. By the way, they are virtual rubber ducks, so just to make it clear. So when I challenged Katja to explain to me in layman's language in terms of how do you do the modelling work and essentially the language used was you just release this virtual rubber ducks and you just follow them how far they travel over a given period of time. That's essentially to highlight the connectivity between coastal waters and high seas. So sadly what you cannot really necessarily see, it's not too bad actually. It's unfortunately pink timescale, but what it meant to show is that there are areas which on this timescale of six months connect to really a large number of least developed countries. So we have areas around Masgrin Plateau in the Indian Ocean, we have that dominant whole of Pacific Islands and we have that East Africa, West Africa block which are very, very important because of the number of countries that connect on a very short timescale. Exactly. And if we cannot protect the whole kind of, or the entirety of high seas and we need to be selective, there are certain areas which are much more influential. Absolutely, precisely that. So one of the sort of the points I mentioned earlier is about, one of the pillars of course is about the area of these management tools including marine protected areas. And of course the devil is in the detail as they say, and the point is then how do you decide which area should be protected. Of course protecting, closing off the entire high seas is not necessarily politically palatable and therefore you have to have a certain criteria and identify which area should be protected and all should be given more priority. And the obvious, the conventional wisdom is about the ecological and biological significance areas in terms of which ones are the biodiversity hotspots. But through this work that Katja did, what we are trying to highlight is which are the areas that have the most significance to least developed countries. Therefore, in addition to the ecological and biological significance, let's look at the socioeconomic significance as well. So if we were to prioritize, as Katja said, then which areas should we prioritize. And I think this highlighted the deep colour, the deep pink or red colours that you see are areas of high socioeconomic significance if you like. Also biological significance of course for a number of least developed countries. I would like to bring in William following Katja here. So William, I guess I think the work that he does is fascinating about the climate change because we're talking about the high seas governance. But how do we future proof it? Because if you were to factor in climate change we could potentially undermine our conservation efforts or even potentially undermine the potential benefits that we may accrue from economic activities in the high seas. Then what happens when you factor in climate change? And that's when, by the way, I'm giving very wrong impression of myself and my job seems to be about running to people seeking for information. Then that's when I went to William and said that, how can a climate change undermine activities in the high seas? But also how could climate change affect fisheries in the high seas most possibly in the coastal area as well through potential money? Can you elaborate a bit more about that, William, if you don't mind? Sure, maybe you can show that. I think besides the physical oceanographic connectivity that Katja mentioned, there's also the bilateral connectivity and the fishery connectivity between the high seas and the coastal area, which is also really important. And this is particularly important for many chuckle or developing countries where they are strongly dependent on fish, not only for their life but also for their health. For example, that map that I show on the left hand side on the screen that is a study that we previously did looking at the nutritional dependence of different countries on fish as a major source of micronutrients such as the same omega-30s. And those countries that are highlighted with reticular shows that it means that if there is a decrease in fish supply, there is a high risk of malnutrition in those countries. So we can see that many of those countries are developing countries along the traffic such as in West Africa, in Asia Pacific regions and in South Pacific islands. And this particular work, we look at how climate change will affect the fish and fisheries. And so looking at how that may particularly affect some of these countries who are currently highly dependent on fish for their food, for their livelihood. Climate change affects us no boundary, whether the fish is in the high sea or in the EEZ. But in this particular case, we focus on fish stocks that are exploited by the high sea fisheries and majority of them, almost all of them, actually are straddling stock, which means that they actually move the stock share between high sea and EEZ that they are not exclusively high seas. So it means that some countries are catching the fish both within the territorial waters as well in the high seas. And the proportions actually differ, particularly for some of the developing countries. Majority of the catch that are straddling, they catch it in the EEZ. So what we look at is we develop future scenarios of what would happen in these fisheries and the different climate change scenarios. And particularly we look at the high emission and low efficient scenarios. The two scenarios are shown on the right hand side of the screen, which are used at sea surface temperature as an example to give you a contrast of the two scenarios. One is the business as usual scenario that gives you around three degrees increase in global sea surface temperature. And then a scenario that's close to the Paris Agreement that can limit ocean warming to around one degree Celsius. And what we find is that climate change really would have a big effect on high sea fisheries. It affects the distribution of fish stocks, it affects the portability. And particularly for the high sea fish catches we project, for example, with a business as usual scenario, it reduced fish catch by almost 70% compared to the Paris Agreement scenario. The power diversity will also be reduced substantially by more than 20%. Also if we look at the low income countries and particularly if we assume that they are catching fish stocks that are important for the high seas, there is also a substantial decrease in their economic benefits, which is over 30%. And we then try to explore various high sea governance scenarios and management scenarios. So we actually convened an expert group, SEM was there, and then we also bring in other colleagues who work on different aspects, like international law, economics, biology, to develop what the future changes in the high sea fisheries and the society would be like. So we developed three ocean futures for the high seas. And there are a few things that are quite important that we find is worthwhile to highlight. First of all, in all the scenarios, business as usual, as I mentioned, there will be big impacts on the high sea fisheries, both in terms of the economic as well in the biology. And secondly, economically, we developed scenarios and looked at changes by the next few decades, by 2050s. We find that the economic viability of all the three ocean futures are actually in doubt. Economically, they don't perform well for various reasons. In some cases, it's maybe because of the low demand for fish, because people shift their diet. In other cases, it's because of the high impacts of climate change and overfishing. But the third one which relates to governance and conservation is that the conservation of the high seas, if we do it effectively, it actually benefits the coastal states particularly for the troubled countries that are affected by climate change quite severely. And the reason for that is that we look at a number of scenarios for high sea governance. There are more reduction in fishing efforts because of reduction in capacity, reduction in subsidies. We also have scenarios of protecting the high seas substantially, 30% or 50%. What we find is that with those protections or reduction in fishing efforts in the high seas, there will be increased in countries relative to the reference scenario where it is business as usual, as well as an increase in biodiversity. The reason is that these fish stocks are straddling, as I mentioned, because they move between high seas and the EZ. When they build up the biomass in the high seas, that actually benefits the EZ. That is in agreement with some of the earliest studies that, for example, she and I have been doing in looking at high sea governance and climate change. But this time, we particularly look at some of the more additions of the ocean futures that relates to the future projections of changes in the society, as well as these alternative governance measures with different levels of management and conservation. And that comes up with this conclusion. Thank you very much William. That's fantastic. I think Naim has enjoyed working with you, William. This was really fantastic. I guess what really struck me when I look at the modelling results were two things, particularly one is, under any given future scenario of the high seas governance or the ocean governance, fishing in the high seas is by no means economically viable. Is that a correct assessment, William? Yes. There is some, it is based on the assumption that we made. Other studies like what she had scored in the studies earlier on, they estimate that a bit more optimistic economic viability based on some assumptions about the economic side of things. But also in addition to that, I think one of the additions from previous study that we did is, we look at how the society will change in the future. You mentioned that it will now do not have a big high sea fishery. But then we look at also the scenarios where for example some of the low income countries may continue to develop and they may actually develop an aspiration for high sea fishing. So you did that into the Kang and how that would then affect some of the changes in fishing efforts. And I can't think of all these. You find that across all the three ocean futures that we look at, none of them are economically viable. Thank you so very much, William. Let me give back to Ankar Lovoy here. I'm taking pride in pronouncing last name very correctly, by the way, Lovoy. How do you pronounce your last name, Ankar? Sorry, I do have a problem with French names. It's great. No one. Nothing personal. Thank you so much. Yeah, so I guess what we're learning from here is the ocean is a highly interconnected system, ecologically speaking. But also the activity in the ICs certainly affect the resilience of the well-being of coastal communities, particularly in developing countries. So from a legal perspective, how realistic is it to divide up the ocean into different legal regimes? So I would have two points, two reactions for the ones that have been just submitted. Thank you so much for your input and for this clarification. I'm extremely happy to be part of these discussions because for us as negotiators and policy makers, if I can say it like that, it's extremely important to have really your feedback because we are, first of all, creating new legal provisions in a future treaty. And I must say that I'm extremely surprised, but not really surprised about these new elements that we'll have to face, first of all, this interconnectivity. And also I wanted to react on your explanations on climate change and ocean. This is something a little bit else compared to the legal issues within the BB&J process. We do really have a lot of challenges there, more particularly on the pillar of the access to marine genetic resources, including fish, because fish is also one of the types of marine genetic resources. Indeed, legally we'll have a very big challenge because, as you might know, EEZ and continental shells are already covered by an international instrument that is called the Nagoya Protocol, which is an implementing agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity and which have very specific provisions. If I take the example in France, as you know, it's a maritime country. We have a very specific provision for EEZ and continental shells and we'll have to ensure legal coherence between the two systems and I think it will be extremely challenging for us and also for the users. Now if we are speaking about our discussions within the BB&J process, of course, and this is also the French position, I can say it, we consider the high seas, we have to have a pragmatic approach there. We do not have the intention to touch to the legal status of marine genetic resources because, first of all, it is not possible as you have already explained with all these changes and to focus very clearly our discussions on the benefit sharing and to see how we can put in place a system that has to be workable, pragmatic, but also balanced and to be also to the benefit of all nations, as you said also, because this is something that is key and we in France, at least the scientists, have also an approach concerning the ocean as an ecosystem and they do not see all these differences, legal differences, even if we cannot just ignore this because this is current international law, but we have to be inventive and we count on you also to bring some new ideas on that issue. So, talking about new ideas, I'm sorry. We talk about the principle of common heritage of mankind applying to marine resources behind seas. I'm very pleased that you mentioned about marine genetic resources including fish and other marine organisms and the idea of applying the principle of common heritage of mankind is essentially saying that the ocean resource in areas of international jurisdiction belongs to everyone and should benefit everyone essentially. No one can have an ownership over the resources. Does that resonate with you thinking or in terms of because it's being a bit innovative? The reason why I'm pressing on this is because it's a highly divisive issue. Julian is giving a wig there because he knows how complex this issue is. It divides countries' opinions and I think it would be really great for our audience to benefit from your opinion about the common heritage of mankind or if there was any element of innovation that could probably meet the demands of many as well in the negotiation rooms. First of all, regarding the negotiations, as you said, I don't have formal instructions on that. However, I would like to remind the fact that common heritage of mankind applies to mineral resources and this principle does not apply to marine genetic resources. I wanted also to remind that marine genetic resources as such are not mentioned in enclose, which is also an important element when we have to argue from a legal point of view the legal status. However, my own opinion, because I have also worked on that just for my own understanding of that issue before being involved in all this more, let's say, delicate discussions in the negotiations, I personally consider the ocean as an ecosystem. I do not see the principle of common heritage of mankind applying only to marine genetic resources because to me the ocean is an ecosystem. However, in my reflection, I also see the difficulty that has this principle to be applied within the whole ocean ecosystem. So to me, I do really see another concept that French scientists are reflecting on it beyond national tradition, which is l'océan bien commune l'humanité, which is translated into English ocean as a common or a common good or a global common, which involves in fact a common responsibility for the protection and the conservation of the ocean and that has to benefit to all nations, not only to some of them. And this is something that I would see, of course, and as I said, in the Paris Agreement we managed to have the reference to the ocean ecosystem in the preambler texts, so Paris Agreement, which is also a treaty. I think it's also an important element to bear in mind and also to build on this within our discussions maybe in the BB&J discussions. So this being said, marine genetic resources, common heritage of mankind, this is something that is extremely difficult to envisage for this negotiation. Now I'm speaking as a pure lawyer because it would involve the modification of UNCLOS while we don't have a mandate from the UN to negotiate the opening of this convention. Legally speaking, this is something that is feasible if we have a mandate. So if all UN countries agree to have a mandate to reopen UNCLOS as it has been done with Part 11 in 1995, this is not unfeasible. But I had also a reflection on the political momentum for this future agreement. We really are very committed at least in France and at the level also to have an agreement by 2020. I was very happy to hear the statement by the Swedish Minister who said that we have to act now, not tomorrow. A lot of people and a lot of experts countries are saying, are we going to handle for 2020, maybe 2022? No, we have a mandate. We have to stick with the mandate and we have to believe that we can do it. So I think that it's important to... I think it's a very humbling statement. It's a very good point. You make anka. Of course, a striking deal takes having the political will to make compromises, et cetera, of course. But just to get back to Katia. So I guess one of the elements that would not necessarily look at the study was, again, to go back to the climate change impact as well, in terms of how it would impact circulation and connectivity, et cetera. To what extent do you see climate change being... Of course, we haven't really analysed this data yet, but if you foresee any potential impact of climate change in impacting the migratory connectivity and ocean circulation, et cetera, and how would that potentially undermine our effort to govern the high seas, for instance? Yeah, absolutely. So everything is beginning to change right now. So we have species getting on the move to adjust to new climatic characteristics and also ocean, ocean, physics ocean dynamic is responding. So ocean currents are beginning to shift, which impacts our pink map. So those important areas begin to shift. So everything is shifting. It's not shifting randomly. It's shifting quite predictably. So we can monitor, definitely. We can project those shifts. But what is important, kind of, to get into our consciousness is that when we design in MPAs and anything, we should single them as areas with flexible boundaries. Absolutely. Those boundaries will begin to move again, not randomly. They will begin to move quite coherently. But we need from the beginning to build in that those boundaries will be shifting. Nothing is nailed in space, especially in the ocean. Ocean is much more different from terrestrial environment. Species move finds a new niche. This niche is carrying on moving. So everything is on the move. We're dealing with a kind of moving planet. Presumably, I mean, you're absolutely right in saying that you cannot necessarily have just a static MPA out there, because things will change and as a result, we need to be more adaptive, essentially. Presumably, that message also resonates with business models, in terms of the business sector as well, maybe, in terms of the risk of change. Absolutely, yes. So those adaptive measurements must kind of include very specifically mentioned flexible moving boundaries. That's put quite a lot of pressure on the monitoring and the predictive studies of these boundaries. Fantastic. I guess I have one question for William. We'll talk about climate change and its impact. There's, of course, so much doom and gloom, of course. But from your analysis, William, do you see any winners? And if so, who are they all? Yes. As Kathy mentioned, a lot of the fish stocks shift under climate change is quite predictable and many of the fish stocks shift is, for example, into the tourist port, the high-latitude region. Because as the oceans warm up, fish try to find areas where temperatures are a bit cooler and can maintain their preferred temperature. So that's often in high-latitude regions where ocean temperatures tend to be cooler than the tropical area. So in this case, as the fish stocks move up, then the countries in the temperate and high-latitude regions tend to actually get more of those fish. So we are already seeing some of these shift, for example. There was a study that shows that tuna stocks range, expand, the range of tourists are more temperate region now. There are also many other examples that are showing that some of the fish stocks are moving into the Arctic. So in this case, we look at the abundance potential catch of the fish stocks. It does show that latitudinal gradient, where the tropical area is losing catch potential in some areas, which is eventually more than 50%, while some of the high-latitude regions are projected to increase in catch. Just to follow up with that, because I think I can see Michelin sitting there in front of me and what he highlighted earlier is very important. We're talking about small-skinned fisheries or smaller minimum enterprise in developing countries, which, according to you, study are most likely going to lose out because they are in the lower tropics. So if you would suggest something very radical that would sustain the likelihood of Michel or his business and people like him in the tropical area, what would that radical change be? I think there are two aspects of changes that are needed. First of all, currently a lot of the fisheries are not optimally managed, so they are actually less productive than they can. So by maintaining their productivity through better management, rebuilding of fish stocks, it can help reducing the impacts. There are already studies that demonstrate that. Secondly, is to actually try to create this abundance of fish stocks that can help with increasing the productivity further. So in this case, in the case of high seas, what we find is that building up a better maintaining this straddling fish stocks, then can, for example, help with coastal states where even though they don't have to go to the high seas, they can still get a better share of these straddling fish stocks within their EZ. And thirdly, is also about thinking of the better diversifications of the way they get their food and nutrition. The best case scenario is that we will achieve the Paris Agreement targets and that the impacts will be in the manageable level. But if we go to a business-as-usual scenario where the impacts can be quite substantial, then we have to think about how we can help with diversifying the sources of food, the sources of incomes, to further moderate and reduce the impacts. And in this case, societal development is really important. Sure. So I've been given much by Jillian there. Are we open for questions and answers? Yes. If it's okay for our panellists, I'd like to give you the top three questions that have come from the poll everywhere. Maybe I'll give them to you and then you can parcel them out. We'll go for questions and then, at the end, maybe I can ask you to give us some of the key messages from the panel. So let me give you all a moment to have a look at the poll everywhere questions. We've got some 28 or so questions. You can toggle back and forth between top and new. Have a look at those and see if there are any you want to give some points to. And then I'm going to ask the panel the top three. So let me pause for just a moment. Ooh, the numbers are going up, they're going up. All right. I'll start with the first one. How realistic is at sea enforcement on the high seas in terms of the law? How realistic is at sea enforcement on the high seas in terms of the law, the expense and the effectiveness? So I guess the question I think probably we can come in first about the monitoring of, suppose, how do you monitor and police the high seas and giving this very vast and... I'm not sure I will understood the question. I'm sorry, could you kindly repeat it? Maybe it's by English. The question is about enforcement. How realistic is at sea enforcement on the high seas in terms of the law? Generally, regarding the high seas. Well, we have a quite established principle which is the flag state responsibility. We will have to challenge this within the BB&J negotiations because there we will have to ensure that scientists under the flag state or under the nationality of the institution rather than the individual is going to fulfil their obligations with the future treaty. So, yeah, how effective this could be. We will have to have also a compliance mechanism to be able to ensure that and it will be very complex. But before speaking about compliance, we have to be all on the same page on the obligations that we will have to fulfil first and second to be also ambitious in terms of responsibility of states. Very clearly, I think. The next question is how can we avoid the issue of RFMOs having a lack of capacity and will to enforce conservation and management measures when these must be approved by the RFMO members who are often the major fishers on the high seas? That's for you, I think. I wouldn't be comfortable taking that question, please. Again, I think it's also... I guess there was... I remember once we spent hours and hours and hours in the windowless gigantic room in the UN headquarters talking about the word undermining. So, how do you make sure we don't undermine original fisheries management organisations? How do we avoid undermining other treaties such as CBD and cross? How do we stop undermining? I think this is a new legally binding instrument. This is my own perspective, by the way. And as a result, we need to work towards developing a global legal tool to govern better ever since the high seas. Because the status quo at the moment you have is RFMOs. I'm not saying RFMOs are not doing a great job. Probably they're doing a good job. However, that means it's very patchy. So, what we need is a shift towards a more global instrument. And for me, that doesn't necessarily translate into undermining these. It answers the question that is. Can you remind us what RFMOs are? So, these are the original fisheries management organisations. To give an example, you have one in the Mediterranean, for instance. You would have one in the Western Indian Ocean or the Pacific, et cetera. So, these are sort of original bodies that govern struggling fish stocks or common resource pools. So, we just got called on acronym use. So, from now on, no big acronyms, unless you're willing to say what they are. The person who wrote the question is the RFMO. Maybe if I can add something to that, undermining or not. In fact, the real issue and the challenge we have in these discussions is how to avoid to interfere with the mandates of these instruments because in these regional parts you have also legal instruments that are impacted. And in the new draft that we have received, we have four options among which we have another very interesting one which suggests to be mutually supported, which could maybe be one of the alternatives in order to support what it has done. And also that at the regional level they could do all the management things in order not to interfere with the mandates, with the legal mandates because the real problem is that not all parties to the future agreement are party to these regional instruments, so the global level cannot impose measures to the regional level. But also vice versa. The potentially countries coming parties to the new instrument but not necessarily being parties that are close. That's right. Right. Let's take the third question that came that's the third highest. How can we use market-based approaches to incentivise better governance of high seas where direct regulation command and control might fail? Sorry, William and Kasia, would you chip into that in terms of could there be some incentive-based tools or instruments that could incentivise good practice in the high seas where command and control fail? Yeah, I think some of the main issues in the high sea fisheries is because of subsidies and that actually makes some of the fisheries that are not economic viable, they become viable because of the subsidies. So I think if there is a detentions to illuminate the subsidies then I think it will provide kind of economic consequences. It may not be incentive but the consequences that the fishing effort level will reduce and the reduction in fishing capacities is one big contribution to a more sustainable fisheries in the high seas. Kasia, can you invite you to come in? Sorry, yes. That's okay. I'm referring from saying much because I think this is a very interesting question, particularly for tomorrow as we discuss about subsidies, etc. The reason why I'm going to emphasise on subsidies is I think it's partly because I don't think without subsidies we will have fishing activities going on in the high seas for business. If you eliminate subsidies, particularly the harmful subsidies then that means you're doing a good job. I mean enabling sort of the same management of the high seas but I think that's a very exciting topic for tomorrow so I don't want to keep in my chair. Excellent. So we have about 10 minutes left. There were 28 or 29 other great questions on there so actually we're going to open the floor now for about 10 minutes to see if you put a question on, you're specifically keen on or if another question has kind of bubbled up in your mind. And then Esam will let you close out with some of your key messages. So we've got some microphones. Just beside you. Please introduce yourself. Hi there. I'm Mr Olivier Yampe. I'm from the Centre for Marine Ecological Resilience and Geological Sources, the centre-based, not again, Trent University, not again Low School. That's where I come from. Today, thank you first for the very interesting discussion. We have so far on the BBNG. This is my area of specialty, by the way. So it makes sense that I'm asking questions on that. Of the ocean particularly as we've discussed about the high seas but of course the legal complexity as well that we have to tackle at the same time. But I guess there's undisputed fact I must say that as remote as they may seem the high seas that are so relevant and so important for coastal communities and economies. And I'm talking about particularly, I'm not saying exclusively but particularly for developing countries that are already facing a number of economic and climatic shocks. So the health of the high seas is extremely important for these countries to thrive and to be more resilient as well. I think that's a very important point to make. But I guess I think the element in the room as we refer to it all the time is about the issue of climate change as well. How could climate change potentially undermine both the conservation and sustainable use of the high seas and therefore whatever treaty we come up with in another day we have to make sure that treaty is climate or future proof. So we need to take into account the issue of climate change very seriously. And I was really motivated, I must say, or very pleased with that very encouraging statement that Ankar made as well about we need to act now. We have the mandate to agree on a treaty, but not necessarily, so at least we have a mandate up to 2020 to reach into some sort of agreement. Let's make it happen. How do we make that happen? I think there are more progressive nations in the room as you call it the negotiation rooms than those who are seen as antagonists. So I think so long as the progressive blocs or countries come together to work together to iron out differences and agree on the legally binding instrument, I tend to share your ambition. I think that might simply be achievable. So on that note, let me thank our distinction panellists and please join me in thanking my colleagues on the issue of climate change.