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 }