Good morning. I'm going to continue and ask you the same type of question, but I hope you'll give us a different type of answer because what you're telling us is far from satisfactory.
First of all, you said you had received scientific opinions over a number of years indicating that the harvest rates for 2007, 2008 and 2009 were really dangerous. In spite of that, you nevertheless decided to continue authorizing high harvest rates in 2007, 2008 and 2009. In 2010, however, a 63% reduction in that rate was announced.
That's a problem. On the one hand, you say that the precautionary approach should be given priority and should take precedence, but when we consider the decisions made, we don't get that impression.
We wonder what other considerations there may have been for accepting a high harvest rate that endangers the species and thus jeopardizes an industry. How can you explain that?