We had a range of stakeholders from across the country from all different communities—indigenous communities, industry groups, recreational harvesters, commercial harvesters, and a range of non-governmental organizations. As my colleague noted, in some cases there were individuals and communities that were struggling a little bit with the closures, but we did have a lot of support. In many cases—and for one of the first times in my career—we had stakeholders working together: commercial industry working with NGOs to help the government land on something and putting forth proposals that the government could work with. I would say it was a really good example in 2017 of acceptance from a broad group of individuals. Our industry is very aware of the growing demands in the market for this kind of evidence of helping protect areas.
From an international perspective, I think my colleagues from the aquatic ecosystems sector, who are speaking next, might be a little more familiar with that. My understanding is that some of the discussions on the criteria are ongoing at an international level, meaning the criteria for how areas would be assessed in meeting the Aichi targets. To my understanding so far, Canada has been ahead of the game, because the Aichi targets are, I believe, 10% for 2020, and it was a Canadian target for the 5%. There have been some Canadian examples put forward.