Operational tools and adaptive management

Table 2.4 Results of experts’ opinions with respect to whether they agree with the
assessment of the tools effectiveness and acceptability
Input regulations Output regulations Economic mechanisms
Politically acceptable Moderate agreement High agreement Highly varying
Cost effective Highly varying Highly varying Moderate agreement
Ecologically effective Highly varying Highly varying Moderate agreement
Dynamically effective Highly varying Moderate agreement Moderate agreement
There seemed to be reasonable agreement regarding the political acceptability with regard to
output regulation management tools, and these are all seen as acceptable, except for bycatch
regulations. Regarding the economic incentive mechanisms, the political acceptability was
highly varying while the different measures of effectiveness were somewhat more in line for
this group of tools. For the output regulations, cost and ecological effectiveness varied
substantially between the experts, while dynamic effectiveness was mainly as described in
Table 2.3. For the input regulation tools, however, the expert opinion regarding all the
effectiveness outcomes varied.
The results of this study give an indication of what tools are seen in a similar fashion
throughout the EU. From this it may be possible to deduce which tools are acceptable to apply
from the top down, i.e. at the EU level, and which should be kept at a national or regional
management level. As we have not specifically asked whether the experts differentiated
between the EU and national level management, this is not absolutely clear, though there
seems to be a greater over-the-board political acceptance for output management tools. This is
also the case, though to a lesser extent, for the input management tools. The perceptions of the
effectiveness of the tools vary substantially, underlying differences in experience, types of
fisheries, modes of control and possibly also understanding of the questionnaire.
Some critical points should be mentioned. The questionnaire is based on discussions carried
out at MEFEPO project meetings, but there was no final project meeting to ascertain the
complete understanding of the answers given prior to this report. Also within countries there
was some disagreement regarding the evaluation of the outcomes of the different tools. A
more focal group approach with discussion and deliberation might have clarified issues, and
more agreement on the assessment of the different tools may have been reached. A broader
expert group may also change some results. However, the approach carried out is a first step
to discussing these issues and clarifying some aspects of management tools in fisheries.
Finally, it must also be stated that studying management tools in isolation may disguise
limitations that the outer framework of the EU fisheries policy, or rather the principles of the
CFP, lay upon the final management tools. This is another aspect that requires going deeper
into the limitations that for instance a principle such as relative stability or the lack of a
discard ban places upon the underlying tools of management, i.e. limiting their political
acceptability and/or their cost, ecological and dynamic effectiveness.
19