I think they'd be better placed to tell you what their opposition to it is. But I've heard them speak a lot about the cost, as well as the monopoly of one organization versus another.
I think there's a lack of understanding of why they need to do this. But looking at the consequences of the whole process, all of the assessments from the Marine Stewardship Council have led to conditions. That's an indication that even strong fisheries that are well managed are not perfect. All of them have received conditions associated with the science or the management. The harvesters are the ones who have to deal with those things, from an industry perspective. They're not the ones who initiated those processes, but they have to live with the changes to their fishery.
A lot of the producers are starting to understand that they need to involve the harvesters much sooner in the process, and they are, by and large. So they are engaged in the development of the assessment as well as the gap analysis and the conditions. In the end that improves the buy-in to make the changes necessary.