Comments and Questions

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 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 Policiesa. 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.