I'll go back to the first part of the question in terms of the history. When this movement started, not unlike what happened in the forestry sector, really it was markets and consumers. Mostly it was markets around the world requiring some sort of demonstration that the products that people were buying were coming from fisheries that were sustainably managed. They literally wouldn't take our word for it. We had in the past signed letters for buyers indicating that we felt the fishery was properly managed, sustainably managed. Markets actually demanded more proof, more evidence, in that respect.
Through these pressures, governments got together at the FAO and developed what we call the FAO guidelines on eco-labelling. Part of those guidelines actually insist that eco-certification regimes are independent and third party from industry, from government, from ENGOs, very independent from all of that, to provide credible independent assessment of management regimes and science regimes in support of sustainable fisheries.
I think that explains, in part, DFO's stance with respect to eco-certification regimes. They are third party, independent evaluations demanded by markets. Some markets don't care. Some markets will take information provided by governments. DFO has also played that role in providing information. You'll notice from DFO's website that there are a lot of layman-terms attempts to explain how we manage our fisheries and the basis of our fisheries management decisions.
It's the same thing on the aquaculture front, where we have a lot of information aimed at targeted buyers to explain how we do things. For some markets that works, but for other markets it's not enough.