I think it's fair to say that if an area or concern has been identified already by the fishing industry or communities at large and they're behind it, and are advocating for more measures to protect the area or species, then those will likely be the most successful and the easiest to deliver. That doesn't mean that others would not be. It just might mean that you need a lot more consultation to arrive at an end point, if the communities or user groups are not already familiar with the plan.
In the case of the marine refuges that we've created, some were already under consideration or had some closures in place for various reasons, and we've leveraged those to help move forward. Others are the result of science, academia, NGOs, and others pointing out specific areas of concern. We can then work with them and the communities in the fishing industry to define a footprint that needs to be protected and to invoke the fisheries closures.