Thank you for this excellent question, which I will answer in English.
I think it's a difficult balance for science to find—to consider all of the considerations in the fishery and the social impacts that might result from their advice. At the end of the day, I think they need to take those things into consideration, but when they're absolutely certain that a stock is in dire shape and that action needs to be taken, I think we do have to take action for greater certainty for the future. At the same time, where there is advice that is not aligned....
Take mackerel as an example. For the most part, the advice from science is not aligned with the views and feelings of many people in the fishing industry. I think in those cases, there needs to be a redoubling of effort to bring greater certainty to the advice, to be sure that the decisions being taken are the right ones and to take due consideration of the impacts on the livelihoods of the people who are going to be affected by that decision.
I hope that gives you an adequate answer to the question. We have to find the balance, but we do have to take the socio-economic views into consideration, particularly when we're not sure.