For instance, a fisheries policy might include objectives for employment or profitability. Depending on how such objectives find more are translated into explicit requirements, however, operators may not be able to ensure their achievement. In that case, the responsibility for achieving such requirements cannot meaningfully be delegated to operators and should remain with the authority. It is an advantage to seek a direct relationship between policy goals and outcome targets. For instance, if the objective is to achieve “biological sustainability” of a stock, it is better that this objective is made explicit in terms of a SSB level than a TAC level. In this example,

the TAC is merely a means to achieve sustainability, which is more precisely expressed in terms of SSB. Further, TACs must typically be updated annually, while outcome targets in terms of SSB may require less frequent adjustment. In this way, defining outcome targets in terms closely related to what one wishes HSP inhibitor to achieve ensures flexibility of means as well as a longer planning horizon. Much of the potential of RBM to lead to improvements relates to operators’ proximity to a practical

context, which allows them to innovate and implement local solutions. In a given fisheries management context, there will be basic legal constraints that are difficult to remove or change. However, to be worth pursuing, RBM must begin from a minimum of regulations in order to grant operators flexibility required to develop efficient solutions.

To continue with the above example: if outcome targets are specified in terms of TAC reductions, this reduces the scope for operators to come up with alternative management measures. It is worth noting that experience from other contexts have shown that a focus on accountability for results, without granting the operating agency flexibility to do things differently may easily lead to disappointment Erythromycin as RBM in such cases degenerates into a mere reporting exercise [9]. In the suggested form, RBM involves a ‘shift in burden of evidence’ such that resource users are requested to document the sustainability of their activities in return for a permission to fish [17], [20] and [22]. In this context the notion “burden of evidence” is more appropriate than “burden of proof. While it would be nearly impossible for resource users to “prove” the sustainability of their practices, authorities can request them to provide documentation of a certain standard. This would typically imply cooperation between the resource users and relevant experts. Under a cost recovery regime, and when carrying the responsibility for documentation as a condition for being allowed to use the resource, the operator has an incentive to find efficient ways to minimize research costs [23], [24] and [25]. One way to achieve this might be that the resource users themselves participate in data-collection [26].

No related posts.