IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehu/dfaeii/6461.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lessons from the northern hake long-term management plan: Could the economic assessment have accepted it?

Author

Listed:
  • Da Rocha, José María
  • Gutiérrez Huerta, María José

Abstract

An economic expert working group (STECF/SGBRE-07-05) was convened in 2007 for evaluating the potential economic consequences of a Long-Term Management Plan for the northern hake. Analyzing all the scenarios proposed by biological assessment, they found that keeping the F in the status quo level was the best policy in terms of net present values for both yield and profits. This result is counter intuitive because it may indicate that effort costs do no affect the economic reference points. However, it is well accepted that the inclusion of costs affects negatively the economic reference points. In this paper, applying a dynamic agestructured model to the northern hake, we show that the optimal fishing mortality that maximizes the net present value of profits is lower than Fmax.

Suggested Citation

  • Da Rocha, José María & Gutiérrez Huerta, María José, 2011. "Lessons from the northern hake long-term management plan: Could the economic assessment have accepted it?," DFAEII Working Papers 1988-088X, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehu:dfaeii:6461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://addi.ehu.es/handle/10810/6461
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kulmala, Soile & Laukkanen, Marita & Michielsens, Catherine, 2008. "Reconciling economic and biological modeling of migratory fish stocks: Optimal management of the Atlantic salmon fishery in the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 716-728, February.
    2. R. Quentin Grafton & Tom Kompas & Long Chu & Nhu Che, 2010. "Maximum economic yield," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 273-280, July.
    3. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 124-124.
    4. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 9, pages 178-203, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Clark, Colin W. & Munro, Gordon R., 1975. "The economics of fishing and modern capital theory: A simplified approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 92-106, December.
    6. Tahvonen, Olli, 2009. "Economics of harvesting age-structured fish populations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 281-299, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José-María Da-Rocha & Rosa Mato-Amboage, 2016. "On the Benefits of Including Age-Structure in Harvest Control Rules," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(4), pages 619-641, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diana Dijk & Eligius M. T. Hendrix & Rene Haijema & Rolf A. Groeneveld & Ekko C. Ierland, 2017. "An Adjustment Restriction on Fish Quota: Resource Rents, Overcapacity and Recovery of Fish Stock," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(2), pages 203-230, June.
    2. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    3. van Dijk, Diana & Hendrix, Eligius M.T. & Haijema, Rene & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2014. "On solving a bi-level stochastic dynamic programming model for analyzing fisheries policies: Fishermen behavior and optimal fish quota," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 272(C), pages 68-75.
    4. Behringer, Stefan & Upmann, Thorsten, 2014. "Optimal harvesting of a spatial renewable resource," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 105-120.
    5. Grafton, R. Quentin & Kompas, Tom & Chu, Long & Che, Nhu, 2010. "Maximum economic yield," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 1-8.
    6. Pedro Pintassilgo & Michael Finus & Marko Lindroos & Gordon Munro, 2010. "Stability and Success of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(3), pages 377-402, July.
    7. B. N. Obegi & I. Sarfo & G. N. Morara & P. Boera & E. Waithaka & A. Mutie, 2020. "Bio-economic modeling of fishing activities in Kenya: the case of Lake Naivasha Ramsar site," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 15-31, April.
    8. Gordon Munro & U. Sumaila, 2015. "On the Contributions of Colin Clark to Fisheries Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(1), pages 1-17, May.
    9. McWhinnie, Stephanie F., 2009. "The tragedy of the commons in international fisheries: An empirical examination," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 321-333, May.
    10. Suphaphiphat, Nujin & Peretto, Pietro F. & Valente, Simone, 2015. "Endogenous growth and property rights over renewable resources," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 125-151.
    11. Yamazaki, Satoshi & Jennings, Sarah & Quentin Grafton, R. & Kompas, Tom, 2015. "Are marine reserves and harvest control rules substitutes or complements for rebuilding fisheries?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-18.
    12. Bertram, Christine, 2010. "Integrating biodiversity indices into a multi-species optimal control model," Kiel Working Papers 1662, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    13. Per Sandberg, 2006. "Variable unit costs in an output-regulated industry: The Fishery," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(9), pages 1007-1018.
    14. Louis-Pascal Mahé & Carole Ropars, 2001. "L'exploitation régulée d'une ressource renouvelable : inefficacité d'un rationnement factoriel et efficacité des quotas individuels transférables," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 148(2), pages 141-156.
    15. Ragnar Arnason, 2009. "Conflicting uses of marine resources: can ITQs promote an efficient solution? ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(1), pages 145-174, January.
    16. Alvin Slewion Jueseah & Dadi Mar Kristofersson & Tumi Tómasson & Ogmundur Knutsson, 2020. "A Bio-Economic Analysis of the Liberian Coastal Fisheries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-21, November.
    17. Schnier, Kurt E. & Anderson, Christopher M., 2006. "Decision making in patchy resource environments: Spatial misperception of bioeconomic models," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 234-254, October.
    18. Ben White, 2000. "A Review of the Economics of Biological Natural Resources," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 419-462, September.
    19. Christian Mullon & Charles Mullon, 2016. "A constraint-based framework to study rationality, competition and cooperation in fisheries," Papers 1605.08166, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2017.
    20. Finnoff, David & Gong, Min & Tschirhart, John, 2012. "Perspectives on Ecosystem Based Management for Delivering Ecosystem Services with an Example from an Eighteen-Species Marine Model," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 6(1), pages 79-118, January.

    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:ehu:dfaeii:6461. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alcira Macías Redondo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/f1ehues.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.