I can't speak to the Kyoto protocol because that's a much broader context, beyond DFO's competency.
I can say that we have changed the way we have been looking at how we manage fisheries. In particular, we're taking a much more risk-averse approach. We're trying to reduce the stress we put on stocks through fishing mortality. We've changed our way of managing groups of fishermen by having them coordinate and cooperate in projects that involve having them share access. Instead of having multiple boats, you can reduce it by a factor of five in seines and some other fisheries.
We've changed a lot of how we've approached the fisheries. We've continued our investments in science, etc. We didn't want to go ahead with the structural change that is contained in recommendation 5. It's expensive in terms of it's an investment in senior staff and we think we can get the result without having that expenditure. We're looking at our structures, obviously, in terms of budget requirements. We're trying to keep our focus on the front lines, on our ability to deliver what's needed, and not to add more weight to our overheads at a time when we need the money where it needs to be spent, which is out on the front lines.
We don't have a list of all of the things specifically. What we are doing is changing our general approach. We are having built in, for example, into our fish plans, a factor where now if the river is warm, if the migratory conditions are poor, that reduces our harvesting accordingly. We take all those kinds of things into consideration relevant to the warmth. Yes, there are some serious things happening to the north Pacific. We're seeing changes all the time. We have to factor that into our thinking and into our management of the fisheries. We have to keep that at the forefront of our thinking when we're making decisions on the harvesting, and when we're working with the Pacific Salmon Commission on that.
Did you want to add anything?