Search

Integrated economic models have become popular for assessing climate change. In this paper we show how these methods can be used to assess the impact of a discard ban in a fishery. We state that a discard ban can be understood as a confiscatory tax equivalent to a value-added tax. Under this framework, we show that a discard ban improves the sustainability of the fishery in the short run and increases economic welfare in the long run. In particular, we show that consumption, capital and wages show an initial decrease just after the implementation of the discard ban then recover after some periods to reach their steady-sate values, which are 16-20% higher than the initial values, depending on the valuation of the landed discards. The discard ban also improves biological variables, increasing landings by 14% and reducing discards by 29% on the initial figures. These patterns highlight the two channels through which discard bans affect a fishery: the tax channel, which shows that the confiscation of landed discards reduces the incentive to invest in the fishery; and the productivity channel, which increases the abundance of the stock. Thus, during the first few years after the implementation of a discard ban, the negative effect from the tax channel dominates the positive effect from the productivity channel, because the stock needs time to recover. Once stock abundance improves, the productivity channel dominates the tax channel and the economic variables rise above their initial levels. Our results also show that a landed discards valorisation policy is optimal from the social welfare point of view provided that incentives to increase discards are not created.

Integrated economic models have become popular for assessing climate change. In this paper we show how these methods can be used to assess the impact of a discard ban in a fishery. We state that a discard ban can be understood as a confiscatory tax equivalent to a value-added tax. Under this framework, we show that a discard ban improves the sustainability of the fishery in the short run and increases economic welfare in the long run. In particular, we show that consumption, capital and wages show an initial decrease just after the implementation of the discard ban then recover after some periods to reach their steady-sate values, which are 16-20% higher than the initial values, depending on the valuation of the landed discards. The discard ban also improves biological variables, increasing landings by 14% and reducing discards by 29% on the initial figures. These patterns highlight the two channels through which discard bans affect a fishery: the tax channel, which shows that the confiscation of landed discards reduces the incentive to invest in the fishery; and the productivity channel, which increases the abundance of the stock. Thus, during the first few years after the implementation of a discard ban, the negative effect from the tax channel dominates the positive effect from the productivity channel, because the stock needs time to recover. Once stock abundance improves, the productivity channel dominates the tax channel and the economic variables rise above their initial levels. Our results also show that a landed discards valorisation policy is optimal from the social welfare point of view provided that incentives to increase discards are not created.

Integrated economic models have become popular for assessing climate change. In this paper we show how these methods can be used to assess the impact of a discard ban in a fishery. We state that a discard ban can be understood as a confiscatory tax equivalent to a value-added tax. Under this framework, we show that a discard ban improves the sustainability of the fishery in the short run and increases economic welfare in the long run. In particular, we show that consumption, capital and wages show an initial decrease just after the implementation of the discard ban then recover after some periods to reach their steady-sate values, which are 16-20% higher than the initial values, depending on the valuation of the landed discards. The discard ban also improves biological variables, increasing landings by 14% and reducing discards by 29% on the initial figures. These patterns highlight the two channels through which discard bans affect a fishery: the tax channel, which shows that the confiscation of landed discards reduces the incentive to invest in the fishery; and the productivity channel, which increases the abundance of the stock. Thus, during the first few years after the implementation of a discard ban, the negative effect from the tax channel dominates the positive effect from the productivity channel, because the stock needs time to recover. Once stock abundance improves, the productivity channel dominates the tax channel and the economic variables rise above their initial levels. Our results also show that a landed discards valorisation policy is optimal from the social welfare point of view provided that incentives to increase discards are not created.

Local (perturbation) methods compute solutions in one point and tend to deliver far lower accuracy levels than global solution methods. We develop a hybrid method that solves for some policy functions locally (using a perturbation method) and that solves for the other policy functions globally (using closed-form expressions and a numerical solver). We applied our hybrid method to solve large-scale RBC models used in the comparison analysis of Kollmann et al. (J Econ Dyn Control 35:186–202, 2011b). We obtain more accurate solutions than those produced by any other (either local or global) solution method participating in that comparison. Our running time is a few seconds.

Local (perturbation) methods compute solutions in one point and tend to deliver far lower accuracy levels than global solution methods. We develop a hybrid method that solves for some policy functions locally (using a perturbation method) and that solves for the other policy functions globally (using closed-form expressions and a numerical solver). We applied our hybrid method to solve large-scale RBC models used in the comparison analysis of Kollmann et al. (J Econ Dyn Control 35:186–202, 2011b). We obtain more accurate solutions than those produced by any other (either local or global) solution method participating in that comparison. Our running time is a few seconds.