Skip to main content

Commons in Action

"Commons in action" is a joint program by the IASC and the Elinor Ostrom Award. The animation was done by the Viumasters. Get to know their work at

FES Story image
OSS Story image
GAIA Story image

Helping small fishermen fight the impact of climate change on their fishing and their future

Climate change is tough on small fishermen: it means they don’t know how many fish there will be in future – but, even worse, it makes them change their tactics so that fish stocks are even more likely to decline. But the way to fight that tendency is to give small fishermen better, more comprehensible information on fish stock changes and finding ways that small fishermen can share the risk of environmental change so they don’t change their tactics to their own detriment.

That’s the conclusion of a new study focusing on the choices made by small fishermen in Colombia. The conclusion, based on behavioral economics and a carefully-designed game that the fishermen played, is the opposite of what a traditional economic analysis would have predicted. Basically, the study shows that when environmental fluctuations happen, fishermen who as a result saw their economic fortunes fall take action to increase their fishing in future. Fishermen who saw their economic fortunes rise because of the environmental change just keep fishing as usual. The net result is that the probability of depleting the fishing stock increases - by a significant sixteen percent.

The problem, the researcher says, is that the uncertainty due to climate change makes a fisherman less sensitive to the impact on his self-esteem of taking selfish actions like increasing fishing effort. That psychological component is ignored by traditional economics, which would have predicted that in the face of uncertainty, fishermen would have tried to reduce their risk exposure by fishing less. But involving actual small fishermen in a game introducing uncertainty in the fishing effort exposed what is really likely to happen, the researcher says.

Cesar Mantilla

The researchers who embarked in this study collected the decisions from a game emulating the harvest of a shared fishing pond in a community of Colombian artisan fishermen. In this game fishermen got paid according to their decisions and their simulated harvest, as if they were fishing in real life. Each participant decided how many fishing trips to make by folding paper boats, knowing that each fishing trip granted a die roll indicating the harvest. Fishermen understood how their decision was part of a dilemma: a larger number of folded paper boats granted them a larger harvest, but decreased the available resource for the future. The economic shock was thus artificially “created” in the game throughout the die roll. An unexpectedly (low) high die outcome indicated a (dis)advantageous economic shock for the fishermen. Fishermen rolling the dice played on average for 6 rounds before depleting the fish pond; without the dice roll (i.e., each paper boat gave always the same harvest), the game lasted 7.5 rounds.

impact story picture

Photos from the study

impact story picture

Photos from the study

Share it: