Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 275–295 | Cite as

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fisheries: The Case of Multiple Regulatory Instruments in Sweden

  • Staffan Waldo
  • Anton Paulrud
Article

Abstract

The fishing sector is a candidate for efficient climate policies because it is commonly exempted from greenhouse gas taxes and the fundamental problem of using a common pool resource is far from optimally solved. At the same time, fisheries management has other objectives. This study uses Swedish fisheries to analyse how the fishing sector and its climate impact are affected by regulations aiming at: (1) solving the common pool problem (2) taxing greenhouse gas emissions and (3) maintaining small-scale fisheries. The empirical approach is a linear programming model where the effects of simultaneously using multiple regulations are analyzed. Solving the common pool problem will lead to a 30 % reduction in emissions and substantially increase economic returns. Taxing greenhouse gas emissions will further reduce emissions. Policies for maintaining the small-scale fleet will increase the size of this fleet segment, but at the cost of lower economic returns. However, combining this policy with fuel taxes will reduce the size of the small-scale fleet, thus counteracting the effects of the policy. If taxation induces fuel-saving innovations, it is shown that this will affect not only emissions and fleet structure, but also quota uptake.

Keywords

CO\(_{2}\) taxation Fisheries Greenhouse gas Innovation Regulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge funding from the Nordic Council of Ministers for the project Economic consequences of abolishing fuel subsidies for fishing vessels (Project No. (58) 2012), and input from the project participants; Ola Flaaten, Nguyen Ngoc Duy, Hans Ellefsen, Jónas Hallgrimsson, Cecilia Hammarlund, Øystein Hermansen, John Isaksen, Frank Jensen, Dadi Mar Kristoffersson, Marko Lindroos, Max Nielsen, Fredrik Salenius, and Daniel Schütt; and from Karin Bergman. Additional funding from the Swedish Research Council Formas (Project No. 229-2009-616) is gratefully acknowledged.

Supplementary material

10640_2016_18_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 21 KB)

References

  1. Ambec S, Cohen M, Elgie M, Lanoie P (2011) The Porter hypothesis at 20—can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? resources for the future. Discussion paper 11-01Google Scholar
  2. Avadí A, Fréon P (2013) Life cycle assessment of fisheries: areview for fisheries scientist and managers. Fish Res 143:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergek A, Berggren C (2014) The impact of environmental policy instruments on innovation: a riview of energy and automotive industry studies. Ecol Econ 106:112–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borrello J, Motova A, Dentes de Carvalho N (2013) Fuel subsidies in the EU fisheries sector. Directorate-General for international policies. Policy Department B. Structural and cohesion policies. IP/B/PECH/IC/2013-114Google Scholar
  5. Brady M, Waldo S (2009) Fixing problems in fisheries—integrating ITQs, CBM and MPAs in management. Mar Policy 33:258–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casini M, Hjelm J, Molinero JC, Lovgren J, Cardinale M, Bartolino V, Belgrano A, Kornilovs G (2009) Trophic cascades promote threshold-like shifts in pelagic marine ecosystems. PNAS 106(1):197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsson F, Kataria M, Krupnick A, Lampi E, Lofgren Å, Qin P, Chung S, Sterner T (2012) Paying for mitigation: a multiple country study. Land Econ 88(2):326–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheilari A, Guillen J, Damalas D, Barbas T (2013) Effects of the fuel price crisis on the energy efficiency and the economic performance of the European fishing fleets. Mar Policy 40:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark C (1985) Bioeconomic modelling and fisheries management. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Costantini V, Mazzanti M (2012) On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Res Policy 41(1):132–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Driscoll J, Tydemers P (2010) Fuel use and greenhouse gas emission implications of fisheries management: the case of the New England herring fishery. Mar Policy 34:353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ds (2008):45. Överlåtbara fiskerättigheter. Jordbruksdepartementet. Regeringskansliet (In Swedish)Google Scholar
  13. EU (2008) Marine Strategy framework directive. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008Google Scholar
  14. EU (2013) Common fisheries policy. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 11 December 2013Google Scholar
  15. EU (2015) Intended nationally determined contribution of the EU and its member states. Submission by Latvia and the European Commission on behalf of the European Union and its member states, Riga 6 March 2015Google Scholar
  16. European Parliament (2011) Functioning of the ETS and the flexible mechanisms. Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Policy Department A, Economc and scientific policyGoogle Scholar
  17. European Parliament (2013) Fuel subsidies in the EU fisheries sector. Policy Department B, structural and cohesion policies. FisheriesGoogle Scholar
  18. Frost H, Kjaersgaard J (2003) Numerical allocation problems and introduction to the Economic Management Model for Fisheries in Denmark—EMMFID. Fodevareokonomisk Institut, KopenhamnGoogle Scholar
  19. Global Ocean Commission (2013) Elimination of harmful fisheries subsidies affecting the high seas. Policy Options Paper #6. November 2013Google Scholar
  20. Hilborn R (2007) Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objecitves. Mar Policy 31:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Homans FR, Wilen JE (1997) A model of regulated open access resource use. J Environ Econ Manag 32:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ICES (2012) ICES advice 2012, Book 9. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. www.ICES.dk. Advice for European eel
  23. ICES (2013) ICES advice 2013, Book 8. Advice for salmon in subdivisions 22–31. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. www.ICES.dk
  24. Jaffe A, Newell R, Stavins R (2002) Environmental policy and technological change. Environ Resour Econ 22(1–2):41–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kemp R, Pontoglio S (2011) The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments—a typical case of the blind men and the elephant? Ecol Econ 72:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindegren M, Mollmann C, Hansson L-A (2010) Biomanipulation: a tool in the marine ecosystem management and restoration? Ecol Appl 20(8):2237–2248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers R, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423(15):280–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nordhaus W (2007) Critical assumptions in the Stern review on climate change. Science 317:201–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2006) Financial support to fisheries. Implications for sustainable development, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Osterblom H, Hansson S, Larsson U, Hjerne O, Wulff F, Elmgren R, Folke C (2007) Human-induced trophic cascades and ecological regime shifts in the Baltic Sea. Ecosystems 10:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parker R, Tyedmers P (2015) Fuel consumption of global fishing fleets: current understanding and knowledge gaps. Fish Fish 16:684–696Google Scholar
  32. Parente J, Fonseca P, Henriques V, Campos A (2008) Strategies for improving fuel efficiency in the Portuguese trawl fishery. Fish Res 93:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pascoe S, Koundouri P, Bjorndahl T (2007) Estimating targeting ability in multi-species fisheries: a primal multi-output distance function approach. Land Econ 83(3):382–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R, Torres FC Jr (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:860–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Priour D (2009) Numerical optimization of trawls design to improve their energy efficiency. Fish Res 98:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schau E, Ellingsen H, Endal A, Aanondsen S (2009) Energy consumption in the Norwegian fisheries. J Clean Prod 17:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Segerson K (1988) Uncertainty and incentives for nonpoint pollution control. J Environ Econ Manag 15:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sethi S, Branch T, Watson R (2010) Global fishery development patterns are driven by profit but not trophic level. PNAS 107(27):12163–12167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stage J (2015) The value of the Swedish eel fishery. Mar Resour Econ 30:221–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steinshamn S-I (2005) Ressursrenten i norske fiskerier. SNS-rapport Nr 06/05, Utredning for Fiskeridepartementet, Samfunds-og-näringslivsforskning AS BergenGoogle Scholar
  41. Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Sumaila UR (2013) How to make progress in disciplining overfishing subsidies. ICES J Mar Sci 70(2):251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sumaila UR, Khan A, Dyck A, Watson R, Munro G, Tydemers P, Pauly D (2010) A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies. J Bioecon 12:201–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sumaila UR, Khan A, Watson R, Munro G, Zeller D, Baron N, Pauly D (2007) The World Trade Organization and global fisheries sustainability. Fish Res 88:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SwAM (2015) God havsmiljö 2020. Marin strategi for Nordsjön och Östersjön. Del 4: Åtgärdsprogram för havsmiljon. Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, report 2015:30 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  46. Swedish Board of Agriculture (2016) Svenskt yrkesfiske 2020—Hållbart fiske och nyttig mat. Consultation draft, Jordbruksverket (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  47. Swedish government (2003) Kust-och insjöfiske samt vattenbruk. Regeringens proposition 2003/04:51. Stockholm (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  48. Swedish National Board for Fisheries (2009) Plan för anpassning av fiskeflottan: bottentrålande fartyg i Skagerrak, Kattegatt och Nördsjon. Fiskeriverket Dnr13-1132-09 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  49. Swedish National Board for Fisheries (2010) Småskaligt kustfiske-Regeringsuppdrag att beskriva det småskaliga kustnara fisket I Sverige samt föreslå hur detta fiske kan forstarkas. Fiskeriverket (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  50. The Economist (2013) Carbon markets. Extremely Troubled Scheme. Accessed 16 Feb 2013Google Scholar
  51. Thrane M (2004) Energy consumption in the Danish fishery. J Ind Ecol 8(1–2):223–239Google Scholar
  52. Tol R (2008) Why worry about climate change? A research agenda. Environ Values 17:437–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tyedmers P, Watson R, Pauly D (2005) Fueling global fishing fleets. Ambio 34(8):635–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Marlen (ed) (2009) Energy saving in fisheries. FISH/2006/17 LOT3—Final report. Report No C002/08. Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies. Wageningen IMARESGoogle Scholar
  55. Waldo S, Paulrud A (2013) ITQs in Swedish demersal fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 70(1):68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Waldo S, Paulrud A, Jonsson A (2010) A note on the economics of Swedish Baltic Sea fisheries. Mar Policy 34:716–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Waldo S, Berndt K, Hammarlund C, Lindegren M, Nilsson A, Persson A (2013) Swedish coastal herring fisheries in the wake of an ITQ system. Mar Policy 38:321–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Waldo S, Jensen F, Nielsen M, Ellefsen H, Hallgrimsson J, Hammarlund C, Hermansen Ø, Isaksen J (2016) Regulating multiple externalities: the case of Nordic fisheries. Mar Resour Econ 31(2):233–257Google Scholar
  59. World Bank (2008) The sunken billions—the economic justification for fisheries reform. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  60. WTO (2005) Ministerial declaration adopted 18 Dec. In: 6 Ministerial conference, Hong Kong. WT/MIN(05)DECGoogle Scholar
  61. Ziegler F, Hansson P-A (2003) Emissions from fuel combustion in Swedish cod fishery. J Clean Prod 11:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ziegler F, Hornborg S (2013) Stock size matters more than vessel size: the fuel efficiency of Swedish demersal trawl fisheries 2002–2010. Mar Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.015

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)UppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Swedish Agency for Marine and Water ManagementGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations