Discussion Paper

No. 2012-64 | December 19, 2012
Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Two Mexican Coastal Fisheries: Implications to Food Security
(Published in Special Issue Food Security and Climate Change)


This paper has a two-fold objective. First, to estimate the changes in landings value by 2030 of two Mexican coastal fisheries: shrimp and sardines as a consequence of climate change. And second, to discuss the implications for food security of such impacts. We estimated output equations using a dynamic panel model for the Mexican fisheries sector with data from 1990 through 2009. Scenarios were generated for the expected changes in fish production. Our results suggest that shrimp production will be negatively affected in about 1.1% in decreasing catch for every 1% of temperature increase by 2030. In contrast, the sardine fishery would benefit by approximately a 4% increase in production for every 1% increase in temperature. For the shrimp fishery, losses amount from US$ 95 million (discount rate = 4%) to US$ 444 million (discount rate = 1%). For the sardine fishery, gains range from US$ 46 million (discount rate = 4%) to US$ 184 million (discount rate = 1%). Most losses/gains would be observed in the NW Mexican Pacific, where the fishing sector has an important role in the local economy and represents therefore a risk to food security on a local basis.

Paper submitted to the special issue
Food Security and Climate Change 

JEL Classification:

C23, Q22, Q51, Q54


  • Downloads: 1682


Cite As

Alonso Aguilar Ibarra, Armando Sánchez Vargas, and Benjamín Martínez López (2012). Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Two Mexican Coastal Fisheries: Implications to Food Security. Economics Discussion Papers, No 2012-64, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2012-64

Comments and Questions

Andy Thorpe - Invited Reader Comment
January 22, 2013 - 11:29

see attached file

Ibarra et al. - Reply to Invited Reader Comment
January 30, 2013 - 08:36

see attached file

John Whitehead - Invited reader comments
February 01, 2013 - 14:08

Ibarra et al. - Reply to Invited Reader Comment
February 26, 2013 - 09:25

see attached file

Anonymous - Referee Report
May 07, 2013 - 09:49

This manuscript (MS) deals with an important issue, and is expected to be useful to the readers of the Economics. But I would like to suggest that the authors may address my following concerns to improve the quality of the MS.

General Comment:
1. The manuscript appears mechanical in ...[more]

... the approach and fails to some extent in linking various sections of the MS. In particular, the results of econometric estimates (Table 1) and the discussion on food security are not well-linked.
2. The discussion on “implication to food security” needs substantial improvement.
3. The model presented in the MS (section 2.3) deals with the estimation of a fisheries production function in Mexico, but not with other aspects of the MS. It is desirable to have a conceptual framework to link various components of the study.
4. It does not flow well, and needs thorough English editing.

Specific Comments:
1. Section 2.1, Choice of species. It seems availability of reliable time series data has been a strong motivational factor for choosing Shrimp and Sardine as “study species”. The authors may provide a better motivation for the use of these two species in analyzing the potential climate change impact on food security.

2. Section 2.2, Variables:
a. Page 4, last paragraph: I assume the analysis is based on yearly data. Please state that clearly.
b. Page 5, third full paragraph: I do not see “rainfall” in the model.

3. Section 2.3, Model:
a. I am fine with the application of dynamic panel data model and the use of GMM estimator. But it is unclear whether alternative models have been estimated to prevent multicollinearity and other econometric problems (such as autocorrelation). None such structured procedures are reported leaving doubt on or how it has been done and on the results in general.

b. Given the structure of the model, I expect some multicollinearity among explanatory variables. Was there some multicollinearity between “capital” and “financing”? The authors have stated that “reductions in financial capital can be observed as a consequence of climatic variability”. If that is true, there might be some multicollinearity between “temperature” and “financing”.

c. The authors have used a “fisheries production function” approach to estimate monetary impact of climate change, and assumed constant price. If the authors want to calculate monetary impact more accurately, it would be advisable to use a different type of model (such as cost/profit/revenue function). Otherwise, authors may emphasize the impact on “physical output” based on the current modeling framework (production function) and use “alternative price regimes” as scenarios.

4. Section 2.4, Scenario Analysis:
a. The authors have used only temperature variability as a scenario. Although the authors have highlighted the importance of over-fishing and various adaption strategies in the Introduction, they have not used these as scenarios. Some of these could have been included even based on the current model (such as changes in capital, financing).

b. See my earlier comment 3c.

5. Section 4, Estimation of Monetary Impacts:
a. It seems the authors used constant fish prices for estimating monetary impact of climate change in 2030. This is a very strong assumption. At the minimum, the authors should do some scenario/sensitivity analysis.

6. Section 3.2, Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation Policies
a. As I indicated earlier, the authors definitely need to improve this section and provide a better analysis of the potential food security implication of climate change.
b. There is a need for a richer discussion on various potential adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Ibarra et al. - Revised Version
August 12, 2013 - 08:45

see attached file

Ibarra et al. - Reply to Invited Reader Andy Thorpe
August 12, 2013 - 08:50

see attached file

Ibarra et al. - Reply to Invited Reader John Whitehead
August 12, 2013 - 08:51

see attached file

Ibarra et al. - Reply to Referee
August 12, 2013 - 08:52

see attached file