Environment

Saving African Rhinos: A Market Success Story

by Aaron on August 25, 2011

in Economics,Environment,International

That’s the title of a very interesting case study by the Property & Environment Research Center, a market-oriented environmental think tank. PERC’s work tends to follow a simple observation: people respond to incentives. Policies that align economic incentives with desired conservation outcomes tend to produce win-win scenarios. In the case of South African Rhinos, their numbers climb back from the edge of extinction, and the humans who care for them are rewarded for their stewardship. From the article:

In 1900, the southern white rhinoceros was the most endangered of the five rhinoceros species. Less than 20 rhinos remained in a single reserve in South Africa. By 2010, white rhino numbers had climbed to more than 20,000, making it the most common rhino species on the planet. . . .

Before 1991, all wildlife in South africa was treated by law as res nullius or un-owned property. to reap the benefits of ownership from a wild animal, it had to be killed, captured, or domesticated. This created an incentive to harvest, not protect, valuable wild species - meaning that even if a game rancher paid for a rhino, the rancher could not claim compensation if the rhino left his property or was killed by a poacher. The Natal Parks Board thought that providing rhinos for a low fee—an effective subsidy— would encourage private owners to be good stewards of rhinos. However, a closer look at rhino prices—both for buying and for hunting—suggests that this view was mistaken. in 1982, the Natal Parks Board list price for a live white rhino was 1,000 South African rands (R). That same year, the average trophy price was R6,000. Any private landowner receiving a live rhino had a very strong incentive to sell it as a trophy as quickly as possible to pocket a 600 percent profit.

Recognizing the fiscal incentives, the Parks Board tweaked their policies to bring auction prices in line with trophy prices (there’s now only a 60% mark-up for trophies).

The combined effect of market pricing through auctions and the creation of stronger property rights over rhinos changed the incentives of private ranchers. It now made sense to breed rhinos rather than shoot them as soon as they were received. Interestingly, the private market also benefited state agencies such as the Natal Parks Board, which gained from the increased income from rhino sales.

As an aside, if you feel strongly that wild animals should remain wild and free without the “interference” of humans, than a) HA and b) because of the market freedom, the Natal Parks Board has more resources to provide more rhinos with that freedom in the park. The unintended benefits of markets tend strongly to spread prosperity around.

Despite the success South Africa has shown with their White Rhino privatizations (and similar, newer programs with Black Rhinos), this approach is stymied by international anti-market policies like the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES. CITES limits the reach and effectiveness of these market forces, in favor of a flat moral condemnation. Is the goal in conservation to feel morally superior by stamping our feet and shouting “NO! NO POACHING! POACHING IS BAD!”, or is it to prevent majestic creatures from dying off? Results matter.

{ 0 comments }

Rick Perry: Disappointing Before He Even Begins

by Aaron on August 10, 2011

in Environment,Government

Jacob Sullum at Reason points to part of Texas Governor Rick Perry’s book which shows an admirable grasp of the 10th Amendment:

Crucial to understanding federalism in modern-day America is the concept of mobility, or “the ability to vote with your feet.” If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas. If you don’t like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, don’t move to California….

The 10th Amendment is pretty simple:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Feds can do whatever they like, provided it’s something a) found in the articles of the Constitution, or b) affirmatively granted authority from the states. James Madison, the be-wigged bro who wrote it, became President, and invented the air guitar, said:

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

Sullum’s piece examines Perry’s move away from his awesome libertarian leanings, to become a Standard Issue Southern Social Conservative Bot. Like the corresponding Northern Liberal model, this mindless automaton is programmed to use the force of the law to run your life, because they have  received wisdom from either the Bible or the Ivy League.

Sullum’s forthcoming article promises to be interesting, and it got me thinking about voting with your feet. Federalism relies on the availability of alternative choices; federal action necessarily precludes such alternatives. This is why Claifornia (and more than a dozen other states) can make marijuana legal, but the Feds can still throw a man in jail for selling it to sick kids with a prescription.

Any Federal action necessarily has a chilling effect on the efficiency of federalism, but specific Fed policies can have a disproportionate impact. Consider the misguided push of Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Politicians decided (on no evidence) that more people should own homes. Subsidizing house-buyers and the mortgage market locked many people into 30 year mortgages who would have otherwise stayed renters. Doesn’t that change in status also limit the likelihood that someone with ‘vote with their feet’?

Unintended consequences: they’re important.

 

{ 0 comments }

Wild Incentives

by Aaron on July 22, 2011

in Economics,Environment

As a follow-up to the elephants:

I’m not saying this is right, or noble, or even good, only this is empirical proof that incentives matter. To change the bottom text for the lions and gorillas, we need to find some reasonable way to incentivize change.

Via.

{ 0 comments }

Incentive Matter, Even to Elephants

by Aaron on July 21, 2011

in Environment

The environmentalist’s dream is an egalitarian society based on: rejection of economic growth, a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.

- Aaron Wildavsky Political scientist and professor (1930-1993)

After listening to Randy Simmons discuss the way Elephant stocks have rebounded in many African countries when villagers took ownership interests in the herds, one student had a problem. In South Africa, the population recoverywas so pronounced that for the safety of other wildlife and villagers, the government decided to allow elephant culling:

Big game hunting had severely depleted southern Africa’s elephant population by the early 1900s. But in the past century, their numbers have recovered as safaris have grown more popular and game reserves have been created. Across the region there are an estimated 270,000 elephants, more than 120,000 of them in neighboring Botswana.

Conservation officials in several African countries have struggled for years to strike a balance between the beloved animals, which have helped fuel a lucrative tourism boom, and other forms of wildlife whose habitats they devastate. In addition, elephants roaming beyond game parks sometimes trample villagers’ crops.

Incentives matter. Randy’s argument was that animals are often endangered because they threaten man’s social and economic activities. This is especially true for elephants. By changing the way the social and economic activities incentivize action towards elephants, their numbers in Africa have drastically increased. Boyes and Melvin explain the elephant in the room:

In contrast to the common ownership strategy, the governments  of Botswana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa created private property rights by allowing individuals to own elephants. These elephant farmers ensure that the elephants breed and produce so that they can be sold for their tusks, for hunting in special hunting parks, or to zoos in developed nations.

One of the students at the lecture was visibly disturbed by this. Afterwards, she asked about the programs (which unfortunately are discontinued in Zimbabwe). Randy explained how they work, but she had a moral objection to anyone ‘owning’ animals in this fashion. Randy asked good-naturedly if she would rather have elephants being owned and plentiful, or wild, free, and dying. He said it mildly teasingly, but she blinked, thought for a moment, and said “I don’t know.”

Incentive matters. Especially to the tens of thousands of elephants who’ve been saved from extinction.

Photo credit to DeviantArt user Cissel

{ 0 comments }

Kill Farm Subsidies

by Aaron on July 7, 2011

in Economics,Environment,Government

NPR examines potential cuts to farm subsidies. It’s an interesting read, but the subtext is sad, and aggravating. NPR’s headline is “Growers Nervous as Washington Eyes Farm Subsidies“. For that nugget, they go to Troy Bredenkamp, executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau. A lobbyist? That’s great journalism.

The sad part is that the reason reform is on the table at all is because American farmers are enjoying a boom period. Wheat is trading two dollars a unit above the federal minimum standard. Across the board ag production and prices are up. Instead of celebrating, NPR is framing this as a doom-and-gloom moment in farming, and seeking shelter under the wing of government. That mentality is baffling.

Farm subsidies are, short of war, one of the most wasteful and destructive policies America engages in. Consider these tidbits, from Oxfam:

The international cotton trade provides the best example of the damaging effects of commodity subsidies. Because American cotton producers get more federal subsidies with each additional bushel they produce, current farm programs encourage overproduction with the surplus dumped on the international market, lowering prices and undercutting the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers around the world.

Cotton subsidy reform could substantially improve the welfare of over one million West African households—10 million people—by increasing their incomes from cotton by 8 to 20 percent. For farmers living on less than $1 a day, this means more money for food, medicines, school fees, and fertilizer—more money to help sustain lives and livelihoods.

There’s also this little problem:

“Biofuel policies are actually helping to accelerate climate change and deepen poverty and hunger. Rich countries’ demands for more biofuels in their transport fuels are causing spiralling production and food inflation,” said report author, Oxfam’s biofuel policy adviser Rob Bailey.

Or this video, from Reason.tv:

It’s time to kill farm subsidies.

{ 0 comments }

Amazing Video: Salton Sea

by Aaron on May 17, 2011

in Environment,Videos


I grew up among trees and farmlands, mountains and rivers and beaches with water like salted ice. I’ve never spent much time in the desert, but I don’t like it. It’s harsh and hateful, a land foreign, untrusting, and untrustworthy. Still, there’s an alien weirdness that is, in the right light, something like beautiful.

Ransom Riggs made this beautiful, startling, and sad video about one of the deserts saddest and uniquely alien places. The Salton Sea is California’s largest lake, but it’s a nauseating post-apocalyptic hellscape, inhabited by one crazy old man and thousands of dead fish. It’s one of the forgotten places of the desert, monument to hubris and the failure of foresight, and the punishing power of the earth turned foul.

{ 2 comments }

Entrepreneurship in Wake of Government Failure; or, Carp Hunting LIKE MEN

April 29, 2011

Asian carp are a serious problem. They’re displacing local fish and endangering ecosystems across North America. According to Wikipedia: Silver Carp (AKA “The A-holes of the sea”) are a pesky fish which are not indigenous to the Illinois River but have nonetheless invaded, setting up their annoying fish trailers and reproducing out of control and [...]

Read the full article →

Remains of the Day

March 16, 2011

So I’ve come out of hibernation… that’s the best excuse I could come up with for my extended absence. And with that, I’ve got some findings to share: Negative externalities: DC students are noisy, must reduce nighttime volume to sound equivalent of a typewriter Paradox of efficiency: Swedes increase average CO2 emissions with green car [...]

Read the full article →

Pixar and Politics

January 4, 2011

The thinking drinking man’s film critic, Vince Mancini, wrote that Toy Story 3 was the third best movie of the year. I won’t spoil his other top picks, but I wanted to share a brief rant he went on, because dude is legit. Take it away, clown-fro: The only people who didn’t like Toy Story 3 [...]

Read the full article →

It’s Noisy Being Green?

October 15, 2010

That’s what I’ve gathered lately. And since we’ve seen the darker side of environmentalism’s noise, as discussed in a prior post by Prodigal Son, consider the following: 1)      The latest news is that people in Vinalhaven, Maine are losing sleep, peace, and quiet… the wind turbines which they once so enthusiastically supported, once turned on, [...]

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries