 The problem with the sea cucumber fishery is that there is a lot of governance issues and it's the way that many people in very remote communities right across the African, Asian and Pacific region make their livelihoods. And so the trade itself or the catch side of their side of things is relatively simple. It gets complicated when we do go through them selling to a buyer who sells to an exporter who sells to an importer. And so there is issues along that value in the market chain and while SITES listing can have a benefit to sustainability and conservation measures, there is also the consideration of the impact that it has on national agencies both in the fisheries sector and the conservation sector because they have to now commit resources and, you know, conduct on natural mental findings and there is a large lack of capacity amongst many national fisheries agencies and conservation agencies to manage the SITES process. Sea cucumber play a very great ecological role which we cannot, you know, and it plays ecological, it plays a social economic role and that means because it's an export commodity, if it's listed and the trade is regulated, then it means there are people who will lose a livelihood. But again, given that we have other countries that are also neighboring and doing a sea cucumber trade, we find a lot of illegal trade that can come across countries and you find a lot of smuggling of trade. So even if we burn, no fishing, then we might find sea cucumber from Kenya being smuggled into a neighboring country. One of the benefits that the expert panel for the sea cucumbers had was the collection of a long time series of data dating back to the early 1990s that had been collected and collated by SBC and we were luckily able to have George Chagrari from SBC who is the invertebrate scientist and is very capable in using statistical databases especially R. My involvement in the panel includes looking at data, essentially data that hasn't been published but is part of fishery style assessments within the Pacific. I look at these numbers and I assess whether or not there's been some trends or changes in catchers, trends in population abundance or population incisors and see whether or not those numbers are consistent with the listing criteria of size. Bring this together into one complete package. With this we end up assessing information across 23 range states, many from the Pacific, five from, six from the Asian, Southeast Asian region and five from the East African region. Those were put into the biological parameters for the size criteria. So yes, it was an extremely busy exercise to try and collect that and it was very good the way that FAO and also the members of the expert panel were able to reach out to range state agencies and collect the information. So I think overall the assessment is very good.