IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01123390.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ecosystem considerations in a second-best world

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Querou

    () (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UM3 - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier, CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Agnès Tomini

    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UM3 - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

Abstract

Species' interactions and the involvement of fishermen in several fisheries may not be properly accounted for by regulatory schemes,thus making regulation suboptimal. Being the only implementable instruments, the degree of ineffciency of three second-best instruments is assessed (by using a bioeconomic multispecies model) in terms of their ability to get close to socially optimal effort and stock levels. The type of regulation and the existing biological interaction are also shown to result in different impacts on effort re-allocation: a specific regulation does not necessarily increase the pressure on the unregulated species. Finally, we discuss how the choice of which second-best policy to implement is situation-specific.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Querou & Agnès Tomini, 2014. "Ecosystem considerations in a second-best world," Post-Print hal-01123390, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01123390
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01123390v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01123390v2/document
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weitzman, Martin L., 2002. "Landing Fees vs Harvest Quotas with Uncertain Fish Stocks," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 325-338, March.
    2. J.J. Agar & J.G. Sutinen, 2004. "Rebuilding Strategies for Multispecies Fisheries: A Stylized Bioeconomic Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(1), pages 1-29, May.
    3. Flaaten, Ola, 1991. "Bioeconomics of sustainable harvest of competing species," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 163-180, March.
    4. Martin F. Quaas & Till Requate, 2013. "Sushi or Fish Fingers? Seafood Diversity, Collapsing Fish Stocks, and Multispecies Fishery Management," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(2), pages 381-422, April.
    5. Wacker, Holger, 1999. "Optimal harvesting of mutualistic ecological systems," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 89-102, January.
    6. R. Quentin Grafton & Ragnar Arnason & Trond Bjorndal & David Campbell & Harry F. Campbell & Colin W. Clark & Robin Connor & Diane P. Dupont & Rognvaldur Hannesson & Ray Hilborn & James E. Kirkley & To, 2005. "Incentive-based approaches to sustainable fisheries," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0508, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
    7. Boude, Jean-Pierre & Boncoeur, Jean & Bailly, Denis, 2001. "Regulating the access to fisheries: learning from European experiences," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 313-322, July.
    8. Ragnar Arnason, 1990. "Minimum Information Management in Fisheries," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 23(3), pages 630-653, August.
    9. Oskar Von dem Hagen & Holger Wacker, 2001. "Stock Externality vs. Symbiosis in a Forest-Air System," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 197-210, November.
    10. Frank Asche & Daniel V. Gordon & Carsten L. Jensen, 2007. "Individual Vessel Quotas and Increased Fishing Pressure on Unregulated Species," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(1), pages 41-49.
    11. Anderson, Eric E., 1988. "Factors Affecting Welfare Gains From Fishing Gear Restrictions," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 1-11, October.
    12. Smith, Vernon L, 1969. "On Models of Commercial Fishing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(2), pages 181-198, March/Apr.
    13. Parzival Copes, 1986. "A Critical Review of the Individual Quota as a Device in Fisheries Management," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 278-291.
    14. Hannesson, Rognvaldur, 1983. "Optimal harvesting of ecologically interdependent fish species," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 329-345, December.
    15. C. Duarte, 1992. "Targeted versus nontargeted multispecies fishing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(3), pages 259-281, May.
    16. Ragozin, David L. & Brown, Gardner Jr., 1985. "Harvest policies and nonmarket valuation in a predator -- prey system," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 155-168, June.
    17. Fleming, Christopher M. & Alexander, Robert R., 2002. "Single Species Versus Multiple Species Models: The Economic Implications," Discussion Papers in Natural Resource and Environmental Economics 23693, Massey University, Centre for Applied Economics and Policy Studies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    multispecies interactions; bioeconomic model; effort allocation; second-best management;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01123390. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.