Is it reckless? I don't know.
A colleague of mine has tried to track down where the 20% came from. Maybe Stephen knows better, but it's not based on any theoretical measure. It's a fairly arbitrary number. I don't really know. I think if it were possible to map where corals and sponges are, for instance, or other sedentary species that we don't know about yet, it's possible that our fisheries could avoid them and 20% might be fine. As long as they were adequately mapped, the industry could avoid as much as possible targeting those areas, a few of which we have around.