Climatic Change

, Volume 94, Issue 1–2, pp 211–232

Climate variability and the Peruvian scallop fishery: the role of formal institutions in resilience building

  • Marie-Caroline Badjeck
  • Jaime Mendo
  • Matthias Wolff
  • Hellmuth Lange


Peru experiences recurrent ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) events during which the Peruvian bay scallop (Argopecten purpuratus) undergoes substantial changes in its stock size. In the North of the country strong warm ENSO events are synonymous with floods and river discharges that negatively affect scallop biomass, while in the South increased sea surface temperatures lead to an increase in stock size. This paper explores how formal institutions respond to climate variability and resource fluctuations in the scallop fishery, and what role they play in the maintenance or erosion of resilience. The research shows that formal institutions are slow to learn, self-reorganize and respond to climate variability while fishermen’s responses are spontaneous, ensuring a rapid process of individual adaptation. Institutional responses are mostly ex-post, and are not strongly shaped by past experience, thus eroding the resilience of the system. However, fishermen’s responses sometimes lead to negative outcomes such as local stock overexploitation or ‘invasion’ of natural scallop habitats for scallop grow-out, and formal institutions play an important role in resilience building through the control of effort and entry in the fishery. In this paper causal loop diagrams are used to conceptualize the fishery system to highlight key variables and processes. The study thus provides the opportunity to explore the usefulness of causal loop diagrams and conceptual models combined with participatory approaches in the exploration of the resilience of a system. The case study also illustrates that individual adaptation, a feature of resilience, is occurring and will occur spontaneously, changing property right regimes and responding not only to climate variability but also market forces. In order to maintain and build resilience and engender positive management outcomes, formal institutions not only need to shape fishermen decision-making, they must also contribute to knowledge building as well as the adoption of innovative approaches.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 24 Horas Libres (2006) Destinarán más de S/.6 millones para apoyar a pescadores que se verán afectados por El Niño. 24 Horas Libres 23 de octubre del 2006. Cited 5 May 2007
  2. Anderies JM, Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2004) A framework to analyze the robustness of social–ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol Soc 9:18. Cited 10 April 2007Google Scholar
  3. Arntz WE (1986) The two faces of El Niño 1982–83. Meeresforschung 31:1–46Google Scholar
  4. Badjeck M-C (2008) Vulnerability of coastal fishing communities to climate variability and change: implications for fisheries livelihoods and management in Peru. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University of BremenGoogle Scholar
  5. Badjeck M-C, Vadas F, Wolff M, Mendo J (2008) Fisherfolk migration as a response to ENSO-induced climate variability in Peru: adapting for the best? In: Perry I, Ommer R, Curry P, Cochrane K, Barrange M (eds) Coping with global change in marine social–ecological systems. 8–11 July 2008, Rome, Italy. GLOBEC, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlas Y (2002) System dynamics: systemic feedback modeling for policy analysis. Knowledge for sustainable development—an insight into the encyclopedia of life support systems. UNESCO, Paris, France, pp 1131–1175Google Scholar
  7. Béné C, Neiland A, Jolley T, Ladu B, Ovie S, Sule O, Baba M, Belal E, Mindjimba K, Tiotsop F, Dara L, Zakara A, Quensiere J (2003) Natural-resource institutions and property rights in inland African fisheries: the case of the Lake Chad Basin region. Int J Soc Econ 30:275–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) (2003) Navigating the dynamics of social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Bingeman K, Berkes F, Gardner JS (2004) Institutional responses to development pressures: resilience of social–ecological systems in Himachal Pradesh, India. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 11:99–115Google Scholar
  10. Broad K, Pfaff ASP, Glantz MH (1999) Climate information and conflicting goals: El Niño 1997–98 and the Peruvian fishery. Public Philosophy, Environment, and Social Justice, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. CAF (2000) Las lecciones del El Niño: Memorias del Fenómeno El Niño 1997–1998: Retos y propuestas para la Región Andina Volumen V. Corporación Andina de Fomento, PeruGoogle Scholar
  12. Crean K (2000) The influence of boundaries on the management of fisheries resources in the European Union: case studies from the UK. Geoforum 31:315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curran S (2002) Migration, social capital, and the environment: considering migrant selectivity and networks in relation to coastal ecosystems. Popul Dev Rev 28:89–125Google Scholar
  14. DePeru.Info (2008) FONDEPES otorga creditos de emergencia a pescadores afectados por marea roja. Cited 7 Jan 2008
  15. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DIREPE (1995) Flota pesquera por rubros segun tipo y sistema de pesca. DIREPE Piura/DSRP LCC. DZ Parachique, PiuraGoogle Scholar
  17. DIREPRO (2005a) Evaluación de las Áreas de Repoblamiento en la Bahía de Sechura. Direccion Regional Produccion, PiuraGoogle Scholar
  18. DIREPRO (2005b) Situacion de la pesca artesanal en la Bahia de Sechura. Workshop “El manejo de la concha de abanico: desafíos y perspectivas”. 12 de Mayo 2005. CENSOR, SechuraGoogle Scholar
  19. Echevarria Espezua RA (1985) Analisis de la extraction y procesamiento de la concha de abanico (Agropecten Purpuratus) en la Provincia de Pisco durante 1983 (año anormal). Thesis, Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, LimaGoogle Scholar
  20. Flores M, Vera S, Marcelo R, Chirinos E (1994) Estadísticas de los desembarques de la pesquería marina peruana 1983–1992. Informe 105. Instituto del Mar del Peru Callao, 202Google Scholar
  21. Flores Ysla F, Mina Valdivia L, Fiestas Chanduvi H, Acasiete Reyes A (2005) Informe estudio de recursos biologicos y areas productivas de la Bahia de Sechura—Piura. ESCAES-Huayuna, Sechura, 69Google Scholar
  22. Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F (2003) Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in socio-ecological systems. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating the dynamics of social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 325–383Google Scholar
  23. Garcia Carhuayo A (1998) Los culpabables desconocidos: pescadores artesanales y medio ambiente en la Reserva Nacional de Paracas-Pisco. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, LimaGoogle Scholar
  24. Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  25. Gordon HS (1991) The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery. BullMath Biol 53:231–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gunderson L (2003) Adaptive dancing: interactions between social resilience and ecological crises. Navigating the dynamics of social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Cambridge University Press, pp 33–52Google Scholar
  27. Hernández-Cornejo R, Ruiz-Luna A (2000) Development of shrimp farming in the coastal zone of southern Sinaloa (Mexico): operating characteristics, environmental issues, and perspectives. Ocean Coast Manag 43:597–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hodgson GM (2006) What are institutions? J Econ Issues XL:1–25Google Scholar
  29. Kramer RA, Simanjuntak SMH, Liese C (2002) Migration and fishing in Indonesian Coastal Villages. AMBIO 31:367–372Google Scholar
  30. Marshall J (2001) Landlords, leaseholders & sweat equity: changing property regimes in aquaculture. Mar Policy 25:335–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mendo J, Wolff M (2002) Pesqueria y manejo de la concha de abanico en la Bahia Independencia. In: Mendo AJ, Wolff M (eds) Memorias I Jornada Cientifica Reserva Nacional de Paracas. Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, pp 188–194Google Scholar
  32. Mendo J, Wolff M (2003) El Impacto del Nino sobre la produccion de la concha de abanico (Argopecten purpuratus) en Bahia Independencia, Pisco, Peru. Ecol Apl 2:51–57Google Scholar
  33. Mendo J, Badjeck M-C, Wolff M, Taylor MH (2006a) Informe del Seminario El manejo de la concha de abanico: desafíos y perspectivas. Pisco, 17 de Marzo 2006. CENSOR. Cited 15 May 2007
  34. Mendo J, Badjeck MC, Wolff M (2006b) Informe del Taller CENSOR-PASARELAS: Las áreas de manejo como una Herramienta para el manejo de recursos costeros en Chile. Concepción, Chile del 7 al 8 de Septiembre 2006. CENSOR. Cited 31 May 2007
  35. Mendo J, Fernandez E, Orrego H, Rojas JC, Valencia PF, Solano A (2002) Bases tecnicas y marco legal para la implementacion de areas de manejo de recursos hidrobiologicos en la costa peruana. USAID-CONAM, LimaGoogle Scholar
  36. Mendo J, Orrego H, Soto I, Carrillo L, Rojas JC, Bandin R (2005) Diseño y ejecución de una encuesta estructural social, económica y ambiental de la Pesquería Artesanal en la región de Pisco/Paracas-IRG STEM-TMA. International Resources Group, STEM-TMA USAID Perú, Fundación para el Desarrollo Agrario, Lima, Peru, p 77Google Scholar
  37. Menger C (ed) (1981) Grundsätze der Volkwirtschaftslehre. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1871. Published in English as Principles of Economics. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Morales WS (1993) Cuidemos el mar que es nuestro terminando la exploitacion irracional de los productos marinos y protejemos los ecosistemas de la Reserva Nacional de Paracas—Wilfredo Suarez Morales Buzo. Pisco, p 71Google Scholar
  39. Newkirk SG (2006) Property rights in fisheries. Bull Mar Sci 78:563–573Google Scholar
  40. Noble BF (2000) Institutional criteria for co-management. Mar Policy 24:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. North DC (1994) Institutions matter. Cited 10 Oct 2006
  43. O’Riordan T, Jordan A (1999) Institutions, climate change and cultural theory: towards a common analytical framework. Glob Environ Change 9:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolšak N, Stern PC, Stonich S, Weber EU (eds) (2002) The drama of the commons. Committee on the human dimensions of global change, National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Academy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Pomeroy RS, Berkes F (1997) Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Mar Policy 21:465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Primavera JH (2006) Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean Coast Manag 49:531–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Proleon J, Mendo J (2002) Estrategia adoptada por los pescadores artesanales ante el reclutamiento masivode concha de abanico (Agropecten purpuratus) en la Bahia Independencia Durante 1997–2000. In: Mendo J, Wolff M (eds) Memorias I Jornada Cientifica Reserva Nacional Paracas. Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, pp 207–211Google Scholar
  48. PROMPEX (2006) Exportaciones Peruanas y Mercados de los Productos de la Acuicultura. Convención Nacional Oportunidades de Negocios en Acuicultura, Lima, Peru, AbrilGoogle Scholar
  49. Ribot JC, Agrawal A, Larson AM (2006) Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev 34:1864–1886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roberts N, Andersen DF, Deal RM, Garet MS, Shaffe WA (1983) Chapter 17: introduction to delays introduction to computer simulation: the system dynamics approach. Addison-Wesley, Amsterdam, pp 301–334Google Scholar
  51. Satria A, Matsuda Y (2004) Decentralization of fisheries management in Indonesia. Mar Policy 28:437–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Secretan PAD, Bueno PB, van Anrooy R, Siar SV, Olofsson Å, Bondad-Reantaso MG, Funge-Smith S (2007) Guidelines to meet insurance and other risk management needs in developing aquaculture in Asia. FAO, Rome, p 148Google Scholar
  53. Shotton R (ed) (2000) Use of property rights in fisheries management volume 1. In: Proceedings of the FishRights99 conference. Freemantle, Western Australia, 11–19 November 1999. FAO Fisheries Technical Papers T404/1, FAO, p 342Google Scholar
  54. Skees JR, Hartell J, Murphy AG (2007) Using index-based risk transfer products to facilitate micro lending in Peru and Vietnam. Am J Agric Econ 89:1255–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tafur R, Castillo G, Crispin A, Taipe A (2000) Evaluación Poblacional de la Concha de Abanico en la Bahía de Sechura e Isla Lobos de Tierra. Julio 1999. Informe Progresivo N°113. IMARPE, Lima, p 14Google Scholar
  56. Takahashi K (2004) The atmospheric circulation associated with extreme rainfall events in Piura, Peru, during the 1997–1998 and 2002 El Niño events. Ann Geophys 22:3917–3926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor MH, Wolff M, Vadas F, Yamashiro C (2007) Trophic and environmental drivers of the Sechura Bay Ecosystem (Peru) over an ENSO cycle. Helgoland Mar Res 62:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson EL, Adger NW (2005) Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environ Sci Policy 8:562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Toufique KA (1997) Some observations on power and property rights in the inland fisheries of Bangladesh. World Dev 25:457–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vadas F (2007) Modelling climate-forced dynamics of the Peruvian scallop fishery. Thesis, Faculty of Biology & Chemistry, University of Bremen, BremenGoogle Scholar
  61. Valdivia E, Benites C (1984) Informe sobre la prospección del recurso concha de abanico en la zona de Pisco, p 13Google Scholar
  62. Valdivieso V (1990) Cultivo de moluscos en el Perú. In: Hernández R (ed) Cultivo de Moluscos en América Latina - Memorias de la 2° Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo Técnico en Ancud-Chiloe-Chile. Guadalupel, pp 329–343Google Scholar
  63. Van Anrooy R, Secretan PAD, Lou Y, Roberts R, Upare M (2006) Review of the current state of world aquaculture insurance. FAO, Rome, p 104Google Scholar
  64. Walker B, Carpenter S, Anderies J, Abel N, Cumming G, Janssen M, Lebel L, Norberg J, Peterson GD, Pritchar R (2002) Resilience management in social–ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv Ecol 6:14. Cited 10 Dec 2006Google Scholar
  65. Wang C, Fiedler PC (2006) ENSO variability and the eastern tropical Pacific: a review. Prog Oceanogr 69:239–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilson DC, Ahmed M, Siar SV, Kanagaratnam U (2006) Cross-scale linkages and adaptive management: fisheries co-management in Asia. Mar Policy 30:523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolff M, Mendo J (2000) Management of the Peruvian bay scallop metapopulation with regard to environmental change. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 10:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolff M, Taylor MH, Mendo J, Yamashiro C (2007) A catch forecast model for the Peruvian scallop (agropecten purpuratus) based on estimators of spawning stock and settlement rate. Ecol Model 209:333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  70. Young OR, Lambin EF, Alcock F, Haberl H, Karlsson SI, McConnell WJ, Myint T, Pahl-Wostl C, Polsky C, Ramakrishnan P, Schroeder H, Scouvart M, Verburg PH (2006) A portfolio approach to analyzing complex human-environment interactions: institutions and land change. Ecol Soc 11:31. Cited 5 Jan 2007Google Scholar
  71. Zenger TR, Lazzarini SG, Poppo L (2002) Informal and formal organization in new institutional economics. Adv Strateg Manage 19:277–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-Caroline Badjeck
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jaime Mendo
    • 3
  • Matthias Wolff
    • 1
  • Hellmuth Lange
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Marine Tropical Ecology (ZMT)BremenGermany
  2. 2.The WorldFish CenterJalan Batu MaungBayan Lepas, PenangMalaysia
  3. 3.Facultad de PesqueríaUniversidad Nacional Agraria La MolinaLimaPeru
  4. 4.Research Center for Sustainability Studies (artec)University of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations