To the extent that we're trying to build a common understanding about how different kinds of tools could be applied and what they might give you, yes. For instance, in the OECD we undertook a very interesting study—I was chairing that committee at the time—to try to demystify the question of market-based measures, because the term is often used and it's explained as being the answer to getting better fisheries management. But it's always, or often, associated with only a particular kind of tool. What we did in that work was to work with all the committee--which was all of the OECD countries. We looked at the literature. We took apart the different characteristics of different measures. We mapped the fisheries management of different OECD countries against that to show that it's the characteristics that matter in changed behaviour; it isn't necessarily the instrument.
What we found was that some countries that said they actually had a law against some of these measures actually had the purest forms. They didn't know them. They called them something different. We mapped those collections of characteristics against different kinds of behaviour to show that there's a whole range of things that you can do that are not all the way to a tradeable quota--it might be a community quota, or maybe even a Japanese-type co-op--that can give you some of those same outcomes, but they could be mainstreamed into the kind of culture and values of a particular country.
We felt that was a contribution to understanding how those tools can help, but the pickup of those is for the managers to do. What we were doing was providing some of the analysis that would help demystify some of those concepts.