Association of Environmental and Resource Economists

• About AERE
• Membership
• Journals
• Newsletters
• Meetings
• AERE Conference
• Annual AERE Meetings at ASSA
• World Congress
• Meetings with AERE Sponsored Sessions
• Related Workshops and Meetingss
• Related Workshops and Meetingss
• Jobs
• Honors
• Resources
• Contact Us
• Home

WEAI/AERE 2012 - Individual Paper Abstract

Title: Conserving Musk Deer in the Wild: A Comparison of Direct Payment and Community Wildlife Management Strategies Author(s): Neil Fletcher; Duncan KNOWLER, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada, 778-782-3421, 778-782-4968, djk at sfu dot ca [Photo credits: hillside: Jesse Wood; musk deer: Wikimedia Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moschustier.jpg)]

Wildlife conservation inevitably requires context-specific management strategies to deal with particular social and economic conditions, particularly in developing countries. No single conservation approach can serve as a blanket strategy for all situations. Community wildlife management (CWM) and payments for ecosystem services (PES) are two such management strategies to conserve wildlife. Both PES and CWM provide approaches for protecting wild populations of various species but they provide differing incentives at the local level. Despite their proliferation in the literature, very little research has compared the relative merits of the two strategies. This paper employs numerical simulation to compare the strategies in terms of conservation and economic development outcomes, using musk deer in Nepal as a case study. The musk deer (Moschus spp.) is a small ungulate found throughout far-eastern Russia and twelve Asian countries in forested and mountainous areas. Among the unique characteristics of musk deer, males possess elongated canine teeth for defence as opposed to antlers found in many other ungulate species. In addition, and of particular interest for this study, the male deer secretes musk to mark its territory and possibly attract females. Such musk is highly valuable substance and is sold predominantly as an ingredient in traditional Asian medicine and to a lesser extent in the perfume industry. Over the last half century, over-harvesting of musk deer has led to drastic declines in their numbers and all species of musk deer are now threatened with extinction. Concern over declining musk deer populations led to international and national efforts to protect them starting in the 1970s.

The model framework considers three agents together with a stock of musk deer: (1) a hypothetical community living near a population of musk deer, (2) outside poachers, and (3) international donors. Poachers originate from outside the community and threaten musk deer population viability by engaging in unsustainable poaching activities on an annual basis. The international donor identifies the most cost effective means to maintain a musk deer population at a target stock level. The community does not participate in anti-poaching activities without an incentive, so the donor will prefer the option that increases the community's anti-poaching efforts in order to maintain the musk deer population. However, the donor also wants to support a policy that contributes to the overall economic-development of the community. The international donor can either support anti-poaching effort by subsidizing a CWM project, or paying community members directly to engage in anti-poaching activities through a PES scheme.

The optimal policy for a donor, who wishes to induce greater conservation outcomes, depends largely on the resource conditions such as biological growth rates, stock densities, and capture technologies. Community wildlife management performs well when resource conditions are good (e.g., higher stock levels) and/or when the technology is efficient at capturing animals. Recipients with a profit-maximizing objective will prefer a CWM approach as they receive a larger transfer of funds. On the other hand, PES has the potential to induce better conservation outcomes at the margin of profit maximization and to serve as a more appropriate policy when stock sizes are too low. There is also the potential for a mix of both strategies to serve as the optimal policy. This would occur when PES can drive a population to a level that is economically viable to operate a CWM strategy.

Due to the paucity in data, and the uncertainty and complexities surrounding musk deer conservation, the refinement and comparison of PES and CWM schemes would benefit from in- situ pilot projects. Pilot projects that implemented either PES or CWM schemes at a small scale would allow resource managers to understand resource problems in more detail and help them to develop improved models of reality.