Session 2: Results of the multi-criteria analysis (MCA)

Part 1
• methodology
• how do the options compare
• questions, comments, corrections
Part 2
• conclusions and preferred option
• questions, comments, corrections
MCA methodology
• MCA is a methodology used to compare and assess different policy
options when it is not possible or practical to assess costs and
benefits in monetized form
• The criteria to which the different policy options are subjected are:
• Effectiveness
• Efficiency
• Coherence
• Acceptability
• Added value
• Each of the 3 options is scored against the criteria by comparing with the status
quo
MCA methodology (cont’d)

Performance Legend
score
0 Does not improve and/or worsens the situation compared to the status
quo
1 Small improvements compared to the status quo
2 Moderate improvements compared to the status quo
3 Large improvements compared to the status quo
4 Very large improvements compared to the status quo
Policy options subjected to the MCA
• Option 1: (Baseline): no policy change, relying on existing policy
frameworks/documents (but with full implementation).
• Option 2: New policy in the form of an AGFP to cover only those regional policy
issues currently absent from existing regional policy documents (marine debris,
subsidies, labour/working conditions).
• Option 3: New policy in the form of an AGFP covering all existing and expanded
regional policy issues, consolidated into one policy document/statement.
Effectiveness
• All three options make contributions to the general objective, but Option 2 and
Option 3 both make a greater contribution than Option 1
• All three options would also make contributions to all 9 specific objectives (SOs)
• Option 2 and 3 are equally effective in supporting objectives
• Specific objective 5 (increase value addition, earnings, and innovation in the
sector) one objective that would not be optimally supported by any of the
options
• All options are effective, highlighting that under the status quo a failure to
implement policy, rather than a lack of policy, may be of greater concern
 Effectiveness (cont’d)
GO

SO1: rebuild depleted fish stocks

SO2: manage environmental and climate change…

SO3: build human skills and capacities

SO4: enhance trade of fish and fishery products

SO5: increase value addition, earnings, and…

SO6: enhance research, and improve data and…

SO7: control illegal activities and increase a…

SO8: reduce bio-security risks in aquaculture and…

SO9: improve the safety and social protection of…

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Efficiency
• The benefits of Option 1 would be great compared to the status quo because 12 of the
15 policy areas considered by the Ad Hoc Task Force as being of potential importance are
already well covered by policy.
• The change in benefits between Option 1, and both Options 2 and 3, would be relatively
small
• The costs of full implementation of existing policy under Option 1 would certainly result
in increased costs for AMS administrations and could be significant
• Under Option 2 and 3, additional/marginal costs to AMS associated with agreeing and
implementation of the three additional policy areas would be small
• Policy development costs under Option 3 could be considerable
• For all options, costs likely to be proportionate to benefits
 Efficiency (cont’d)

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Coherence
• Option 1 makes no change on the status quo as no additional policy is specified
under this option (just enforcement of existing policy).
• Option 2 would provide some limited improvements in coherence as some now
policy areas would become part of regional policy and could be specified to be
coherent with national policy, ASEAN context, and international best practice
• Option 3 provides greatest coherence, as all existing regional policy could be as
absorbed into an AGFP and checked/amended for coherence as part of that
process
 Coherence (cont’d)

coherence with international best practice

and obligations

coherence with ASEAN frameworks and

mandate

coherence with national policy

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Acceptability – AMS views on appropriateness of
including different policy areas in an AGFP
 Acceptability (cont’d)

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

 Added value

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Questions?

Comments?

Corrections?
Session 2: Results of the multi-criteria analysis (MCA)

Part 1
• methodology
• how do the options compare
• questions, comments, corrections
Part 2
• conclusions and preferred option
• questions, comments, corrections
 Conclusions and a preferred option
14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence Acceptability Added value

 14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

Conclusions and a preferred option Option 1

Effectiveness Efficiency
Option 2

Coherence Acceptability
Option 3

Added value

• Based on the MCA, the preferred option is thus Option 3.

• Improvements in the implementation of existing policy may be more
important than the specification of new regional policy in the form of
an AGFP
• The acceptability of Option 2 is low. Deal breaker?
• Option 3 could itself be problematic
 14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

Conclusions and a preferred option Option 1

Effectiveness Efficiency
Option 2

Coherence Acceptability
Option 3

Added value

Is Option 3 to be recommended?
• Option 3 could itself be problematic and not guaranteed to bring
about positive change in addressing problems
On the other hand…
• the process to develop such a policy, and the agreed policy itself,
could provide fresh impetus for improved implementation
Recommendation
• Ad Hoc Task Force to make final decision based on feasibility study
and the MCA, but also political considerations
• Decision should recognise the current institutional and political
setting
• Given potential difficulties in moving forward with any sort of AGFP,
Task Force should be wary of doing so just because a feasibility study
was requested.
Questions?

Comments?

Corrections?