That's a good point. It's to get certified the first time. Then it costs to meet some of the conditions. Then the certification lasts only five years and you need to get recertified. It's not another $100,000, but it's.... It's not an inexpensive process.
In terms of being involved in this since it really started, I would say there was enormous resistance from industry about a decade ago. They said that this is nonsense, that they weren't going to do this, that it's way too expensive, and no one was going to tell them...that sort of thing.
The reality is that when retailers started to say—and it was Walmart, some big U.S. retailers, and Sainsbury's, Marks & Spencer, and a few others in the U.K., Germany, and France—that by 2013 or whatever the year was they would have only MSC-certified fish or seafood on their shelves, that really changed things.
Why did those retailers make those decisions? They know their consumers. They know their stockholders, etc. That's really what drove this. Then the MSC certification and other certification schemes really took off.
It's to the point now where a lot of fisheries really believe this is the cost of doing business now. It's just part of, as was said by others, the reality here.
I'll tell you candidly that a decade ago when this was getting going, governments were of two minds about whether to get involved in it. Part of it was exactly like the comments that are being made around this table that it's the government's responsibility to say whether it's well-managed, etc. On the other hand, these certification regimes were being established and if we weren't going to be involved in making sure that the record was set the right way, we needed to be involved in some way.
We've always said that it is indeed a market-based decision, based on retailers and then individual fisheries groups saying, “We want to get certified and we will support this in whatever way we can.”
I'm sorry; you did have another question that I've lost.