WPS6890
Policy Research Working Paper 6890
Ecosystems
Burden or Bounty?
Richard Damania
Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo
A.J Glauber
The World Bank
Africa Region
Sustainable Development Department
May 2014
Policy Research Working Paper 6890
Abstract
This paper presents a somewhat novel approach to explore of data. This ecosystem is also undergoing rapid change
the economic contribution of ecosystems. It develops from a host of factors related to developments within and
linked models to capture connections between resource around the protected area system. The analysis identifies
stocks and flows and the resulting microeconomic and the contribution of the ecosystem to the economy and
macroeconomic impacts. A bioeconomic model is finds that changes in tourism and bushmeat hunting
developed that is imbedded into a computable general have surprisingly diffuse economy-wide impacts, that
equilibrium (CGE) model. Incorporating imperfect are especially large in the rural sector. To guard against
regulation, the bioeconomic model characterizes optimal overstatement, ecosystem impacts are under-stated
policies, while the CGE model explores the economy- relative to other effects. The results suggest that linkages
wide consequences of possible changes to the ecosystem. to the natural resource sector (backward and forward
The model is parameterized and calibrated to the case multipliers) are important and neglecting these may lead
of the Serengeti ecosystem which is perhaps the most to biased estimates.
intensively researched biome with a relative abundance
This paper is a product of the Sustainable Development Department, Africa Region. It is part of a larger effort by the
World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around
the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The author may be
contacted at rdamania@worldbank.org.
The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development
issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the
names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those
of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and
its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
Produced by the Research Support Team
Ecosystems - Burden or Bounty?
Richard Damania 1, 2
World Bank
Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo
Center for International Economic Studies, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”
A.J Glauber
World Bank
Key Words: Renewable resources, bioeconomic modeling, tourism
JEL Codes: Q57; Q59; Q20; Q29
1
Author affiliations: Corresponding author - R Damania World Bank Africa Region,
rdamania@worldbank.org. Pasquale Scandizzo, , scandizzo@economia.uniroma2.it, Ann Jeannette
Glauber World Bank Africa Region aglauber @worldbank.org.
2
The authors are grateful to Michael Toman, Luc Christiaensen, Jacques Morisset and Anders Skonhoft
for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
1. Introduction
Nestled within east Africa’s Great Rift Valley lies the Serengeti plain which spans more than 25,000
km2. In the language of the Maasai, “Serengeti” is the term for a “great open space”. It is home to an
extraordinary diversity and density of wildlife, with over a million wildebeest, large herds of zebra,
gazelles, elephants and rhinos that are accompanied by numerous other ecologically significant
species (Sinclair 1995; Sinclair et al.2008). The annual wildebeest migration is the largest movement
of animals in the world and has become a tourist spectacle. The migration plays a crucial biological
role that enables large herds of ungulates to track shifts in forage as they journey from the parched
grasslands of Tanzania, to more fertile pastures in Kenya. In any given year tourism typically generates
the bulk of foreign exchange for Tanzania, often surpassing mineral export revenues. Understanding
the economic role and linkages of this ecosystem with sectors of the economy is arguably not without
significance for an economy so dependent upon its revenues.
This paper presents a somewhat novel approach to explore the economic contribution of ecosystems.
It develops linked models to capture connections between renewable resource (wildlife) stocks and
flows and the resulting micro and macroeconomic impacts. The approach is then applied to the
Serengeti ecosystem which is one of the iconic tourist destinations in Africa. Methodologically this
paper builds upon the familiar bioeconomic models that have been used in the African context (see
e.g., Skonhoft and Solstad (1996, 1998), Skonhoft (1998), Bulte (2003), Fischer et al (2011)). It
extends the approach by incorporating imperfect regulation together with an analsysis of multiple and
conflicting uses of renewable resources through tourism, trophy hunting and bushmeat hunting and
competition for land for agriculture. To our knowledge there have been no earlier attempts to
formalize this problem of resource rivalry. The results suggest that observed responses to pressures
often depart from optimal policies. For instance when carrying capacity declines, optimality calls for
an increase in land allocated to wildlife – the reverse of what is typically observed. Likewise the
optimal response to increasing agricultural profits entails intensification of agriculture, with more
land devoted to wildlife – the opposite of current observable trends especially in Africa. The paper
2
links this framework to a CGE model that incorporates a renewable resource (wildlife) sector and
includes tourism, bushmeat and trophy hunting of natural resource (wildlife) stocks. A CGE approach
seems appropriate in contexts where the size of the tourism and wildlife sectors are sufficiently large.
Simulations using available parameters for the Serengeti provide an indication of impacts and
resource resilience. 3 The exercise suggests that each change when considered in isolation is less
significant than the combined impacts which have synergistic effects. Increased enforcement and
more stringent regulations on harvesting or illegal land conversion (to agriculture), do little to correct
outcomes once irreversible changes occur. The CGE model tracks the impacts across the economy and
the results are often surprising. The simulations indicate that changes in tourist revenues and wildlife
harvesting (especially for bushmeat) tend to have diffuse impacts that are transmitted through the
economy, with the largest effects occurring among the (poorer) rural households. This reflects the
multipliers of the natural resource sector, as well as the effects of the tourism sector through the
exchange rate. Policies that stimulate these sectors therefore have broad impacts due to the wide
linkages. In short the results suggest that policies that boost (or degrade) the Serengeti could have
wide impacts that seem to dominate strategies in alternative sectors due to the exchange rate impacts
as well as the multiplier linkages.
This paper is related to a large and growing body of literature in bioeconomics and in particular on the
Serengeti. The allure of the Serengeti has inspired a vast amount of research and it is perhaps the
most intensively researched ecosystem in Africa, with studies that have tracked wildebeest migration
and demography for close to a century. Especially notable are the cross-disciplinary studies that
recognize the need to explore the economic drivers of environmental change. In a pioneering early
paper Barrett and Arcese (1998) examined the effectiveness of integrated conservation and
development (ICDP) approaches and concluded that these may have limited durable impact – a result
confirmed by much subsequent research. Johannesen and Skonhoft (2004) explore the role of
property rights on poaching incentives and find that contrary to expectations assigning property
3
The focus is on a reduction in the carrying capacity, and increased pressures for land conversion to alternative
uses. There are a number of compelling reasons to suggest that carrying capacity could decline. There is
increased grazing pressure from an expanding population of domestic cattle, additionally as noted by Holdo
(2011) development could lower carrying capacity by over 30 percent.
3
rights (ownership) could lead to more hunting when the nuisance effects of crop damage from wildlife
dominates. In contrast Holdo et al (2010) develop a spatially explicit simulation model of the
Serengeti (termed HUMENTS) to examine the combined pressures of rainfall variability and poaching
on wildebeest populations. In an extension Holdo et al (2011) use the model to explore the effects of a
barrier to migration on the wildebeest population. The results are striking and suggest a median
decline of about 38 percent of the population resulting from a fall in the carrying capacity of land due
to a loss of access to higher quality forage. A related strand of literature explores the determinants of,
and motivations for, hunting in the Serengeti (see, e.g., Johannsen (2005)). Finally, using an “Almost
Ideal Demand System” Rentsch and Damon (2013) examine the consumption elasticities of bushmeat
hunting and find a high cross-price elasticity between bushmeat and other sources of protein
(especially fish and beef), implying that households would readily reduce consumption of bushmeat if
offered modest price incentives (such as subsidies for legal meat, or harsher penalties for illegally
sourced bushmeat). None of these papers has combined a bioeconomic economic model with a CGE to
examine broader interactions and none of the theoretical models addresses optimal policy responses
in a closed form bio-economic model. It hoped that this paper presents policy relevant results in a
framework that extends existing analytical approaches.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the benchmark bioeconomic
model and derives analytical solutions for defining optimum regulatory levels and allocations between
competing users. Section 3 introduces imperfect regulation and identifies departures from the
benchmark model. This is followed by numerical simulations in the following section. Section 5
briefly describes and presents results for the CGE analysis while Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. The Benchmark Model
This Section begins by presenting a simplified benchmark model to obtain closed form solutions and
compare outcomes to those under imperfect regulation. There are three agents in the model that use
the ecosystem: tourists who are attracted by the abundance of wildlife, trophy hunting ventures that
4
are allocated a hunting quota by the government and locals who engage in two types of activities - they
hunt wildlife (bushmeat) for consumption and farm.
In keeping with the existing literature the focus is on a single representative species - the wildebeest.
This simplification is reasonable in the context of the Seregenti where wildebeest fulfill important
ecological functions as ecosystem regulators, with significant impacts on the local economy.
Ecologically wildebeest are regarded as a keystone species, whose numbers regulate biomass growth,
tree dynamics, predator populations and ungulate competitors (Sinclair et al 2008). Reducing their
numbers from habitat patches results in marked changes in biodiversity and community structure
(Terborgh et al 2002). All of this suggests that as a first approximation a focus on the dominant species
is reasonable in a modeling context. Data on tourism indicate that tourist numbers closely correlate
with wildebeest populations suggesting that they remain an important draw card for visitors,
especially because of the migration. 4 For the locals, the wildebeest are an important source of protein
and the migration periodically brings large numbers into proximity of humans and increases their
vulnerability to hunting outside protected areas. 5
Due to the paucity of quantitative information, in what follows functional forms are used that
economize on data requirements. Tourists are assumed to visit the area to view wildlife and their
numbers Tτ , depend on the stock of wildlife. For simplicity, wildlife stocks are proxied by wildebeest
population W (Sinclair op cit). The number of tourists is then given by 6:
Tτ = AW β ; 0 < β <1 (1a)
4 2
A regression yields the following log tourist numbers = 0.5 log(wildebeest) + 0.211 time trend, with an R = 0.879 though the
correlation need not imply casuality.
(2.45) (0.81)
5
As noted earlier this species is disproportionately impacted by hunting leading to concerns that this could result in wider trophic
changes with impacts across the food chain (Holdo et al) .
6
Note that it is possible to interpret this formulation as the outcome of a utility maximizing problem such that tourist utility
1
1 ������ ������ 1−������
������(������ ) = (������������)������ − ������������ where P is price per tourist day, which upon maximization yields Tτ= � � ; In equation (1) this
������ ������
1
1 ������������ 1
implies that ������ = � � and β = b/1- b, or equivalently b = β/(1+β). Hence = −
1−������
(W/P)(b/1-b) and finally for completeness
������ ������������ 1−������
we note that the price elasticity of T is –P/(1-b).
5
The other agent in the model are the trophy hunting concessionaires who are granted an allocation Ω
by the government. 7 The harvest of wildebeest allocated to trophy hunting is:
Th = ΩW (1b)
Locals in the model engage in farming and hunting for bushmeat. 8 Numerous empirical studies
confirm that bushmeat remains an important source of protein for the (mainly) poor households that
live in the Serengeti ecosystem. In some parts of the ecosystem bushmeat hunting is legal, though
subject to controls. Let N be the legal allocation of bushmeat, the model subsumes the case where all
hunting is illegal (N =0) and allows for poaching and noncompliance in subsequent sections. Farming
in this context could represent either livestock rearing (the traditional Maasai activity), or crop
production (dominant among other groups). An important feature of the model is that there is
competition for land used either for farming or wildlife. Let L = Lw + Lg be the total amount of land
allocated to wildlife and agriculture respectively and further assume that Lw = Lp + Lwnp , where, L p
denotes land in the protected national park, Lwnp is land outside the national park used by wildlife.
Finally let Lnp = Lwnp + Lg be land outside the protected areas. Utility to locals from hunting and
farming is given by:
V (Π ) = [( ρ − c)(WN ) + ( P − k )(( L − Lw )]ϑ = [π NWN + π L ( L − Lnp − L p )]ϑ ; ϑ < 1 (1c)
where ρ and c define the benefits and costs respectively from the harvest of wildebeest9 and
π N = ( ρ − c) while π L = ( P − k ) are unit profits from land used in agriculture, Lg= L − Lw .
Social welfare is simply the aggregate utility of the three agents and takes a Cobb-Douglas
specification, defined as:
7 Trophy hunting in Tanzania is largely outsourced to commercial organizations who market the hunting experience as an
elite and high-end activity often with “guaranteed” kills (Kideghsesho 2006). The aim here is not to examine the
bioeconomics of trophy hunting but to explore the interactions of multiple uses, so we abstract from more detailed industrial
organization concerns in what follows.
8 In an extension we explicitly model labor supply decisions. This adds realism but does not alter the qualitative conclusions,
so is ignored in what follows.
9 Note that ρ and c can be derived from the primitives of a Cobb Douglas utility function. We avoid this step in order to
economize on space.
6
U = Tτα Thγ Π l = ( AW β )α ( B(ΩW ) γ )θ [π N WN + π L Lg ]ϑ = FW σ Ωη [π NWN + π LW ( L − Lw )]ϑ (2a)
where βα + γθ + ϑ = ϕ < 1 , σ = βα + γθ = ϕ − ϑ and F = Aα B θ .
The stock of wildebeest evolves according to the usual logistical differential equation. This functional
form is not only analytically convenient but has also been parameterized for the Serengeti wildebeest
(Stratton 2012):
dW W
= rW (1 − ) − ΩW − NW (2b)
dt qLw
where r is the intrinsic growth rate, q is a parameter that measures the carrying capacity per unit of
land available for wildlife and Ω and N are the harvest of trophy hunters and locals respectively. We
begin by deriving optimal allocations in an idealized situation of full compliance, with control variables
Ω, N , Lw , subject to the dynamics of W in (5). The Hamiltonian can be defined as:
W
H = FW σ Ωη [π N NW + π L Lg ]ϑ + µ[rW (1 − ) − ΩW − NW ] (3a)
q ( L − Lg )
where µ is the co-state variable.
The first-order conditions for a maximum are:
∂H U
= η − µW = 0 (3b)
∂Ω Ω
∂H U
=ϑ πN − µ = 0 (3c)
∂N Π
∂H U W2
= ϑ π L − µr =0 (3d)
∂Lg Π q ( L − Lg ) 2
• ∂H U π W
µ − δµ = − = −σ − ϑU N N − µr − 2 µr + µΩ + µN (3e)
∂W W Π q ( L − Lg )
Using equations (3d) and (3e) and recalling that Lg ≤ Lnp , the optimal allocation of land to wildlife is:
7
rπ N
Lw = L − Lg = W , if Lg ≤ Lnp and Lw = L p otherwise. (4)
qπ L
Thus the land allocated to wildlife at the optimum is directly proportional to the relative payoffs to
hunting, relative to farming (πN/πL) with an adjustment for the carrying capacity of land (q) and the
intrinsic growth rate (r). Observe that Lw is declining in q since a higher carrying capacity implies that
less land needs to be allocated to wildlife to achieve any given payoff. 10 Combining equations (3b) –
(3e) yields the optimal change in the stock of wildlife:
•
W πL
= r (1 − )−Ω− N (5)
W qrπ N
By equation (5) it is clear that non-negative growth requires that the relative profitability of farming is
̇
������ ������ q
sufficiently low for an equilibrium to be sustained (i.e. > 0 → ������ ������ < [ r − (Ω − N )]2 ).
������ ������ r
The optimal growth paths of the control variables are given by:
•
Ω 1 πL Ω
= [r (1 − 2 ) − δ ] + and (6a)
Ω αβ rqπ N η
•
N 1 πL [1 − (2ω N − 1)η 2ω − 1 πL
= [r (1 − 2 ) −δ ]+ Ω−( N )[r (1 − ) − N ] (6b)
N ω N (αβ ) rqπ N ηω N ωN rqπ N
The results under perfect regulation are intuitive. A higher value of tourism ( αβ ), or a lower
regenerative capacity (r) diminishes growth of both types of hunting, whereas a higher carrying
10
Since agriculture occurs only on non-park land Lnp this can be stated as:
rπ N
Lw = L p + ( Lnp − Lg ) = ( L − Lnp ) + W
qπ L
.
8
capacity (q) unambiguously leads to higher harvest rates in both sectors 11. The intuition is
straightforward - greater tourism benefits and a lower regenerative capacity of wildlife, favor non-
consumptive tourism. While in (6b), the rate of increase in bushmeat hunting rises with the level of
trophy hunting (suggesting complementarity) when η is sufficiently small.
Finally for later use we note that solving for the steady state values yields:
η πL
Ω ss = [r (2 − 1) + δ ] (7a)
αβ qrπ N
ϑ πL π L rπ L
N ss = [r (2 − 1) + δ ] − L + ) (7b)
αβ qrπ N π NW qπ N
In the steady state, hunting levels decline with the benefits derived from tourism (αβ), but increase
with the profitability of agriculture, and with the rate of discount, suggesting a higher preference for
current consumption (or a longer path of accumulation of natural capital). From expression (5) in the
πL
steady state, the combined value of the harvest must equal r (1 − ) . Using expressions (7a)
rqπ N
•
W
and (7b) with the equilibrium condition = 0 , yields the steady state stock of W:
W
αβ π L
L
φ πN
Wss = (8a)
rπ L (φ − αβ ) π N
[2 −r+ δ) ]
qrπ N φ πL
where φ = αβ + η + ϑ < 1 is a measure of the scale parameter of the welfare function.
Ω̇ ̇
������ Ω̇ ̇
������ Ω̇ ̇
������
11
������ ( ) ������ ( ) ������ ( ) ������ ( ) ������ ( ) ������( )
By inspection Ω
������ (������������ )
< 0 and ������
������ (������������ )
< 0, Ω
������������
< 0 and ������
������������
< 0, ������(������������
Ω
)
> 0 and ������(������������
������
)
> 0 and
̇
������
������ ( ) ������������
������Ω
������
> 0 if η < ������ .
������
9
Expression (8a) reveals that in the steady state, the stock of wildlife will be larger, the smaller the
relative profitability of hunting, compared to farming. Conversely, the steady state values of land in
the benchmark model are given by:
αβ π L
L
ss φ πN
Lw = (8b)
qπ N (φ − αβ )
2− [r − δ]
rπ L φ
In the steady state, the optimal level of land allocated to wildlife is positively related to factors that
increase their relative payoffs. These results are largely predictable and provide a benchmark for
comparison with outcomes under regulatory imperfections.
3. Imperfect Regulation
It is hard to overstate the challenges of regulating an area as large as the Serengeti – an expanse
extending over 25,000 km2 spanning an international border. Poaching by the local population is a
widespread problem, estimated at over 10% of the wildebeest population in certain years (Rentsch op
cit). Simultaneously land conversion and encroachment, especially in the buffer zones is a problem
that grows more pervasive with rising population densities. This section extends the core model by
allowing for breaches of regulatory quotas and possible legal sanctions for poaching and
encroachment onto areas reserved for wildlife. There is limited evidence of trophy operators violating
their quotas – perhaps a reflection of the large hunting blocks that are leased to operators over
significant periods of time together with generous hunting allocations, which are likely more incentive
compatible. Allowing violations by trophy hunters in the model would be straightforward, but is
ignored in what follows.
With regulatory imperfections the timing of events becomes significant. It is assumed that the
government is the first mover and defines the policy parameters, taking account of the downstream
responses (the reaction functions) of other agents where relevant. Observing these policies, the local
population responds by setting the level of hunting (N) and the land allocated to farming (Lg). Lacking
10
property rights, the local population ignores resource dynamics and they myopically maximize short
term expected utility, given the observed policy parameters. In contrast the government maximizes
long term welfare taking account of resource dynamics. Thus the local population maximizes:
Max u = {π NWN − τπ NW ( N − N a ) 2 + π L Lg − vπ L ( Lg − La ) 2 }ϑ (9a)
where N a and La are the legally permissible allocations of hunting and agricultural land determined
by the government and τπ NW and vπ L represent the expected fines which are levied respectively on
hunting and farming in excess of these allowable limits. 12 Further τ > 0 if N > N a and τ = 0 if N ≤ N a
and v> 0 if Lg > La and v = 0 if Lg ≤ La . Note that the expected penalty is assumed to be increasing
in the misdemeanor, reflecting the common judicial convention that the punishment should fit (rise
with) the crime.
Maximizing equation (9a) yields the first-order conditions which define the reaction functions of the
local population:
1 1
������ = ������������ + and Lg = La + (9b)
2������ 2v
Observe that ∀ ∞ > ������ > 0, ������ > ������������ , thus harvest levels will always exceed the allowable quota, by an
amount that is inversely proportional to the fine for non-compliance (unless the fine is infinite). This
is arguably a realistic feature of the model. If the allowable quota (Na) is zero, the fine coincides with a
tax levied on the whole amount of hunting. A similar result applies to the land allocation decision.
12
The expected penalty can be interpreted as the product of: the probability of detection (say z), the probability of conviction
conditional upon being detected (say c) and the penalty once convicted (say e). Thus τ = zce. Introducing corruption and
bribe giving drives a wedge between the probability and cost of detection and conviction, but does not alter the analysis.
11
1
Note that since 0 ≤ N ≤ 1, and 0 ≤ Lg ≤ Lnp , fines must meet the conditions: τ ≥ ,
2(1 − N a )
Lnp
v≥ . 13
2(1 − La )
Substitute (9b) in (9a), to define the indirect utility function:
V ( Π ) = [π NW ( N a + 1 / 2τ ) − τπ NW ( N a + 1 / 2τ − N a ) 2 + π L ( La + 1 / 2v ) − vπ L ( La + 1 / 2v − La ) 2 ]ϑ = Πϑ =
1 1
= [π NW ( N a + ) + π L ( La + )]ϑ (9c)
4τ 4v
As the first-mover, the government will take account of the downstream responses of agents as
defined in the reaction functions in equation (9b). Thus the modified Hamiltonian is given by:
������ 1
������ = ������������ ������ Ω������ ������(Π) + ������(������������(1 − 1 − Ω������ − (������������ + )������ (10a)
�������������− −������������ � 2������
2������
Since there are two instruments (the fine and the quota) and one objective (the optimal allocation),
one of the instruments can be set arbitrarily, while the other is defined through the optimization of
equation (10a). In what follows we focus on defining optimal quotas (Na and La) taking the expected
penalties (τ and v) as given. This is perhaps a realistic description of institutional realities. Typically
the conservation authorities have limited jurisdiction over criminal sanctions and their authority is
restricted to determining issues directly related to wildlife management such as quotas and
allocations. The ultimate penalties for violating regulations are usually determined by other layers of
government involving the judiciary, over which conservation authorities have little direct control. For
policy purposes these parameters are given. The first-order conditions are defined by:
������������ ������������������������
= − ������ = 0 (10b)
������������������ Π
13For example if the quota on hunting is 5% of the stock of wildebeest , the minimum tax that would yield a value of the
actual hunting share not exceeding 100% would be 52% of unit profits. Another interpretation is also possible. Consider,
( N − N a )2
however that the tax is levied such that τ v is obtained by equating: τ vπ N WN = τπ N W ( N − N a ) 2 → τ v = τ .
N
Thus, for example, for τ = 50 , N a = 0,05 , the optimum value of N would be 0,06 and the marginal ad valorem tax rate
τ v = 0,01.
12
������������ ������������
= − ������������ = 0 (10c)
������Ω Ω
������������ ������������������������ ������������������ 2
= − 2 =0 (10d)
������������������ Р1
�������������− −������������ �
2������
•
µ σ 1 1 2W
= δ + (1 − )Ω − ( N a + ) + ( N a + ) − r[1 − ] (10e)
µ η 4τ 2τ 1
q( L − − La )
2v
Using (9b), (10b), and (10d) the allocation of land is given by:
1 rπ rπ N
La = L − − W �qπN → Lg = L − W (11)
2v L qπ L
The amount of land allocated to farming increases with the profitability of farming, declines with the
WM
stock of wildlife and increases with the carrying capacity q = of wildlife since the payoffs
( L − Lg )
from wildlife related activities increase with resource abundance. 14 Further note that as v declines the
amount of land allocated to farming also declines.
Using (10c) and (10d) the steady state allocation of trophy hunting is given by:
η rπ L 1
Ω ss = [( 2 − r) + +δ] (12a)
αβ qπ N 4τ
The numerator of (12a) is analogous to the familiar fundamental equation of renewable resources,
with an adjustment reflecting imperfect compliance. As compliance declines, so does the stringency of
(optimal_ regulations, in recognition of the limits of governance. Hence the optimal allocation to
trophy hunting rises. This simply reflects the fact that the optimal stringency of regulations depend
upon levels of enforcement.
Turning next to bushmeat hunting, the steady state allocation is defined by:
14
Note that a greater carrying capacity allows for higher levels of agriculture. Contrary to popular policy wisdom
the latter result suggests that policies that diminish ecological carrying capacity need to be accompanied by a
reduction in farmed area (intensification), rather than the reverse. Agricultural expansion is often the stated
rationale for these policies (e.g. water abstraction or traffic increases) in and around protected areas – which is
the opposite of the optimal response implied by this model.
13
ss ϑ rπ L 1
Na = [( 2 − r) + + δ ] + J1 (12b)
αβ qπ N 4τ
rπ L 1 πL L 1
where J 1 = − − (1 − ) .
qπ N 4τ π N W 4v
The share of bushmeat hunting is:
ss 1 ϑ rπ L 1
N ss = N a + = [(2 − r) + + δ ] + J2 (12c)
2τ αβ qπ N 4τ
rπ L 1 π L 1
where J 2 = + − L (1 − )
qπ N 4τ π NW 4v
The equilibrium level of bushmeat hunting includes a non-compliance factor J 2 , which rises as the
penalties τ and v decline. Intuitively, in regimes with weak penalties, there is less compliance and
knowing this the government allows for a higher legal amount of bushmeat hunting, ceteris paribus.
Wildlife stocks in the steady state are defined by:
αβ π L 1
[ (1 − )]L
φ πN 4v
Wss = (12d)
{2 rπ L − r + (φ − αβ ) δ + φ
qπ N φ 4τ
where φ = αβ + η + ϑ < 1 is a measure of overall convexity of the social welfare function.
Note that a steady state with positive values requires that both the numerator and denominator are
positive 15.
Land allocated to wildlife in the steady state is
αβ π L 1
[ (1 − )]L
φ πN 4v
Lw
ss = (12e)
qπ (φ − αβ ) φ
2 + ( N )1 / 2 {− r + δ+
rπ L φ 4τ
15
To see why note that the numerator needs to be positive to ensure that shares of hunting are non-negative but
less than unity and therefore the denominator needs to be positive.
14
The following Lemmas summarize and compare the two equilibria. They suggest that the proportion
of stock harvested under imperfect regulation is always higher than under perfect regulation (for finite
fines) and as a result wildlife stocks are always lower under imperfect regulation. This reflects the
inability to fully control harvesting and land use in an environment where compliance cannot be
assured. In contrast Lemma 2 asserts that as regulatory compliance improves the amount of land
devoted to agriculture declines, since in a better regulated economy it is easier to ensure compliance
with regulations. Finally Lemma 3 demonstrates how land allocations need to vary with changes in
carrying capacity and relative payoffs.
������
Let ������ ������ ������
������������ , ������������ , ������������������ , ������������������ be the proportion of wildlife harvested by trophy hunters and bushmeat hunters
������
������
respectively under perfect (p) and imperfect (I) compliance in the steady state and let ������������������ , ������������������ be the
respective steady stocks of wildlife. Then:
Lemma 1a. With finite penalties the proportion of wildlife harvested under imperfect compliance by
trophy hunters and bushmeat hunters, always exceeds the proportion harvested under perfect
������ ������ ������ ������
compliance. That is ������������������ < ������������������ , ������������������ ������������������ < ������������������ .
η πL
Proof: From (7a) Ω p ss = [r(2 − 1) + δ ] and from (12a)
αβ qrπ N
η rπ L 1 1
Ω I ss = [( 2 − r) + + δ ] . Thus Ω������ ������
������������ − Ω������������ = − < 0 ∀ 0 < ������ < ∞. From (7b)
αβ qπ N 4τ 4τ
ϑ πL π L rπ L
p
N ss = [r(2 − 1) + δ ] − L + ) and by (12c) N ss
I
=
αβ qrπ N π NW qπ N
ϑ rπ L 1 ������ 1 ϑ π L 1
[( 2 − r) + ������
+ δ ] + J 2 . Thus ������������������ − ������������������ =- ( +1)- L ( ) <0 ∀ 0 < ������ <
αβ qπ N 4τ 4τ αβ π NW 4v
∞ ������������������ 0 < ������ < ∞ . ∎
Lemma 1b. In a steady state wildlife stocks under imperfect compliance are always lower than under
������ ������
perfect compliance. That is ������������������ > ������������������ .
15
αβ π L
L
φ πN
Proof: From (8a) W p ss = and (12d)
rπ L (φ − αβ ) π N
[2 −r+ δ) ]
qrπ N φ πL
αβ π L 1
[ (1 − )]L
φ πN 4v
W I ss = . Consider first the numerators of these expressions – clearly:
rπ L (φ − αβ ) φ
{2 −r+ δ+
qπ N φ 4τ
αβ π L 1 αβ π L 1
[ (1 − )]L - L = - < 0 ∀ 0 < ������ < ∞. Consider next the denominators:
φ πN 4v φ πN 4v
rπ L (φ − αβ ) π N rπ L (φ − αβ ) φ φ
2 −r+ δ) - {2 −r+ δ + =- < 0, ∀ 0 < ������ < ∞. Thus the
qrπ N φ πL qπ N φ 4τ 4τ
������ ������
numerator of (33) is smaller and its denominator larger so that ������������������ > ������������������ . ∎
Note also that the difference in wildlife stocks vanishes only if penalties are infinite. For
future discussion of policy issues we note the following properties of the equilibria:
Lemma 2 As regulatory compliance improves the amount of land devoted to agriculture declines.
������������������ ������������������
That is > 0 and > 0.
������������ ������������
������������������ ������������ ������������ ������
Note that using (11) we have = − � ������������������ � < 0 and from (12d) we have = 1 >
������������ ������ ������������ 4������2 (������+ )2
4������
rπ L (φ − αβ ) αβ π L 1 ������������ ������
0, ������ℎ������������������ ������ = −r+ δ and Χ = [ (1 − )]L and = 1 >0 .
qπ N φ φ πN 4v ������������ 4������ 2 (������+ )
4������
������������������ ������������������ ������������ ������������������ ������������������ ������������
Hence = > 0 and = > 0. ∎
������������ ������������ ������������ ������������ ������������ ������������
Thus the optimal allocation of land for conservation is larger in situations with greater compliance.
Intuitively in situations of weak governance, stricter regulations (limits on agricultural expansion)
cannot be enforced. Recognizing this, where compliance is weak a greater amount of land is devoted
to agriculture. It is interesting to note that this result emerges even without incorporating
monitoring costs in the model.
16
Lemma 3 As carrying capacity declines the optimum steady state allocation of land to wildlife increases
and as the relative payoffs to hunting increase the optimum steady state allocation of land to wildlife
������������������ ������������������
declines . That is ������������
������������
< 0 ������������������ ������������
������������������
<0.
������������
������������������ ( )������������2 ������ (φ − αβ )
Proof. From (12e) ������������
=− ������
2 < 0; where ������ = { −r+ δ and upon
������������
������������������ 2
1
������������������ 2
1 4������ φ
2������� � �������� � +2�
������������������ ������������������
������������������
������������ ������������ ������������
simplifying = −( + 2 ) < 0. ∎
������������������ ������������ 1 1
������������������ 2 ������������������ 2
2������������������ � � �������� � +2�
������������������ ������������������
In policy terms Lemma 3 seems especially instructive. Activities that lower carrying capacity (q) call
for an increase in land allocated to wildlife – often the reverse of what is observed. Intuitively as q
increases (decreases), wildlands become more (less) productive, so any given payoff from W can be
obtained with less (more) land devoted to wildlife.
4. Partial Equilibrium Simulations
This section numerically simulates the impacts of key pressures, individually and in combination to
assess the response of agents in the model. As noted in Section 1 the model is parameterized for the
Serengeti given the availability of data for this biome and changes in the surrounding areas. We
consider the consequences of changes in carrying capacity. 16
This section seeks to assess the possible bio-economic implications of such activities. In terms of the
model parameters, policies to boost agricultural production would increase payoffs and incentives to
expand the agricultural frontier into former wildlands, with implications for wildebeest numbers,
tourism and hunting. Other proposals, which typically involve use of the ecosystem for other purposes
are expected to lower the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, especially if they impede the wildebeest
16 Sources include examples such as building proposals, illegal artisanal mining within the protected area as well as
commercial mining in the peripheries. For reports of illegal mining within the Park see
http://allafrica.com/stories/201203270109.html . Further N Leader Williams ,J A Kayera and G Overton (2006)Mining in
Protected Areas in Tanzania Institute of Wildlife and Development 2006, list the precious metals being mined. See also Hance
(2011) (http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0414-hance_tanzania_gov.html.)
17
migration which helps sustain the high density of ungulates. 17 As a keystone species, declining
wildebeest numbers would have cascading impacts on the abundance and diversity of other species.
In what follows we explore the consequences of such changes sequentially and in combination and
assess the effectiveness of regulatory instruments in mitigating the consequences.
Appendix 1 provides a summary of the assumed parameter values used to calibrate the model. Figure
1 illustrates the equilibrium which occurs at the ascending branch of the logistic growth curve. For the
given parameters the harvest function intersects the growth curve from below, implying that this
equilibrium is stable. Figure 1 also illustrates the impacts of a change in carrying capacity (q).
Observe that as carrying capacity increases (or declines) the corresponding off-take rises (or falls) less
(more) rapidly due to the higher curvature of the logistic curve near the origin (i.e. its concavity). The
economic implication is that a declining carrying capacity rapidly erodes the economic benefits
accruing to the wildlife harvesters and vice-versa.
Figure 1
G Harvest function
r
o
Growth functions
w
t
h
Biomass (million wildebeest)
The results of the simulation are in Table 1. The first column summarizes the baseline case which
attempts to describe the current situation. The simulation tracks observed outcomes with reasonable
accuracy. In the baseline the model predicts about 1.12 million wildebeest in the steady state which
corresponds closely to an actual population of between 1.2- 1.3 million animals. The projected
hunting off-take at 300,000 is somewhat larger than the estimated harvest of 200,000, perhaps
17
A decline in numbers could be due to restrictions on the ability of wildebeest to track temporal shifts in high-quality forage
resources across the landscape. In the most rigorous quantitative assessment available, Holdo et al (2011) find that habitat
fragmentation resulting from such structures (even without habitat loss), would lead to a projected median decline of 38
percent of the population.
18
reflecting the clandestine nature of much hunting, while projected tourist numbers at 282,000 are
within the estimated current range of between 200,000 and 300,000 visitors a year.
Consider first the effects of a decline in q, the carrying capacity, which could occur for a number of
reasons (examples include the numerous intrusive structures suggest that would impede the
migration, high intensity tourism, mining or other pressures). We begin by considering the effects of a
20% decline in carrying capacity, which is lower than the median prediction of Holdo et al (op cit) for
current policy pressures. 18 As noted in the previous sections the optimal response to a lower carrying
capacity calls for an increase in the allocation of land to wildlife and a reduction in hunting quotas.
Despite these policy shifts, wildlife numbers decline by about 22% to 850,000 and tourist numbers
fall. The next column explores the effects of a 20% increase in agricultural revenues so that the
allocation of land to agriculture is increased. Once again wildlife numbers decline by about 25% to
810,000, with a corresponding fall in tourist numbers and the wildebeest harvest.
The next column considers the combined effects of 20% higher agricultural profits together with a
20% decline in the carrying capacity. This time there is a much more dramatic decline in wildebeest
numbers (by about 50%) to 600,000 together with an equally significant reduction in the hunting off-
take and tourist numbers by almost 30 percent. The implication is clear. The combined pressures
have synergistic effects, with one factor exacerbating the effects of the other, so that the joint effects
exceed the sum of the individual impacts.
Could these negative consequences be reversed through improved enforcement? The final column
considers the optimistic, though unlikely, case where all fines are doubled. While there is some
improvement in wildebeest numbers, the decline in the population is still significant at 32 percent.
Evidently though increasing penalties may lead to improved compliance, this does little to address the
root cause of the decline in wildlife numbers - a lower carrying capacity resulting from a degraded
ecosystem.
These results have two striking implications for policy. First there is a need to be alert to potential
synergisms, which may lead to unwelcome surprises when multiple impacts interact. Second the
18
The detailed simulations by Holdo et al (op cit) based on a spatially explicit model suggest a median population decline of
38%. To guard against exaggerating possible impacts we consider a more modest reduction in carrying capacity
19
standard policy instruments – fines and enforcement of quotas – may do little to reverse the
population decline when the carrying capacity and hence productivity of the ecosystem is
diminished. 19 This might suggest the need to avoid damage in the first instance if the economic gains
outweigh the foregone benefits. To explore these trade-offs in greater detail the following section
examines wider economic impacts in a general equilibrium context. It does this by embedding the bio-
economic results into a CGE model.
Table 1
Baseline 20% Reduction 20% increase Combined 20% Combined +
in carrying agricultural increase in ag. profits Doubling of fines
capacity profits and 20% reduction in
carrying capacity
Wildebeest (#) 1,120,000 855,000 810,000 600,000 740,000
Harvest (#) 300,000 210,000 200,000 140,000 180,000
Tourists (#) 289,000 260,000 240,000 200,000 210,000
Land to wildlife 17,300 17,600 16,900 17,200 18,100
(km2)
5. General Equilibrium Simulations
This section outlines the results of a CGE simulation20. At the core of this CGE is a social accounting
matrix (SAM), whose architecture reflects the main components of the Tanzanian economy. The
information for the SAM is drawn from the GTAP data base which is augmented with other data to
extend the natural resource component of the model. A detailed description of the data and model is
in the Appendix. A CGE approach seems warranted in this context given the size of tourism and
wildlife sector and the importance of the Serengeti to the national economy of Tanzania. Tourism is
the second largest source of foreign exchange, estimated at over US$1.28 billion, and directly
contributes to more than 13 percent of GDP, with a considerably higher indirect contribution (World
Travel and Tourism Council, 2013). The overwhelming majority of benefits derive from tourist visits
to the Serengeti – one of the primary attractions. Additionally the government earns significant
revenue from fees and licenses for tourism and trophy hunting estimated at close to $100 million a
19
This has implications for the way infrastructure impacts are managed. It is not unusual to seek payments for
damage to the environment with the revenues being used to improve enforcement of regulations. This result
suggests this strategy could be ineffective.
20
Cataldo Ferrarese, of the University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, collaborated and provided expert research assistance
for the construction of the CGE model.
20
year 21. A CGE approach is also useful in that it provides a consistent framework to assess the overall
and distributional impacts of trade-offs between segments of the economy – such as ecosystem and
environmental losses in the Serengeti that occur as a consequence of gains in other parts of the
economy (e.g., agriculture, mining and so on).
To our knowledge the introduction of wildlife in a CGE is somewhat novel feature of this paper and
warrants a brief explanation. For renewable natural resources such as wildlife, the accounting in the
CGE-SAM can be done in a manner that is similar to the treatment of livestock, with the important
difference, that there is no investment in producing the asset when appropriate conditions prevail. If
the population under consideration grows (or declines), any change in the stock of animals, will be
credited to the capital account. Of course in a steady state the population (stock of capital) is constant
– if one eschews the question of different vintages.
The CGE model outlined in the Appendix is solved under the following macroeconomic closure and
market clearing conditions: (i) the exchange rate is flexible and the balance on the current account is
fixed, so that the exchange rate adjusts to clear the current account; (ii) the internal balance –
government savings – is fixed, as are all tax rates except the income tax rates paid by households,
which adjust to clear the government account; (iii) the volume of investment is fixed, i.e., the capital
stock passed onto the next year is fixed, implying that household savings rates adjust to clear the
capital account; and (iv) the market clearing condition for the factor markets are for long run
adjustment so that capital and labor are assumed to be mobile across activities in response to changes
in wages or rental rates.
Table 1 in the Appendix presents simulations for the cases considered in the partial equilibrium
analysis where there are losses in the wildlife sector and benefits accruing in agriculture and
connectivity. This simulation closely corresponds to current priorities. The appendix also presents
simulations, for carrying capacity changes of 25% and 15%, with all else remaining the same in the
economy. The basic qualitative results are unchanged. In the simulations it is assumed that
21 See http://www.mof.go.tz/mofdocs/overarch/strategicplan.doc
21
agricultural profits (economy-wide) rise by 20% and connectivity costs decline through the economy
by 15%, while there is a reduction of carrying capacity of 20%. Simulations of other scenarios are in
the Appendix and broadly reflect the finding of this particular illustration. To guard against
exaggeration of impacts the assumed benefits from the proposed changes in the Serengeti are
considerably higher than suggested gains, while assumed impacts on carrying capacity is lower than
suggested by recent demographic models. 22 These changes would result in a reduction of proceeds
from international tourists of $552 million per year (tourist numbers go from 750,000 to 515,000,
expenditure per day is $200 with 10 days average stay). To guard against exaggerate tourist
expenditures are significantly underestimated. Data reported in the World Travel and Tourist Council
suggest expenditures of about $500 per day in Tanzania.
As the table shows, in all the simulations, the effects appear to be diffused through the economy.
However impacts are especially large among (poor) rural households. Even in a case when there is a
very large positive shock on agriculture, to compensate for a loss of bushmeat, there is a net loss
registered in the rural sector as a result of economic contraction following the reduction of foreign
exchange flows. Value added (a proxy for GDP) , on the other hand, changes by more than the flow of
tourists revenue due to changes in the exchange rate. These exchange rate changes imply that the
effects of tourism are spread across the economy. In short the simulations suggest that policies that
lower or increase revenues and benefits from the Serengeti have wide ranging impacts that spill over
to other sector of the economy. Understanding the direction and magnitude of these spillovers is
crucial to policy analysis.
6. Conclusions
This paper has developed a bioeconomic model linked to a CGE model to assess the economy-wide
consequences of alternative policies. The bioeconomic model characterizes optimal policies and
suggests how actual responses may depart from optimal policies. Simulations in a partial equilibrium
22
The assumed are far above what is suggested by proponents and considerably higher than what estimates suggest might
eventuate (see GoT 2011 and Holdo et al 2011)
22
context indicate that synergism (super-additivity) of impacts must remain a source of concern. Each
threat when considered in isolation is less significant than the combined impacts of pressures, so that
the total impact is greater than the sum of the individual effects. This suggests practical and
conceptual challenges for policy making which typically considers impacts and issues separately and
by sector. For instance debates on the volume and impact of tourism and tourist infrastructure,
seldom consider effects emanating from the agriculture and land-use, or connectivity and vice-versa.
Moreover the analysis finds that the conventional instruments of conservation policy (fines, quotas,
etc) are less effective in reversing the damage once carrying capacity has been impaired.
The CGE analysis suggests that economic impacts that eventuate from changes in tourism and
bushmeat hunting in the Serengeti have diffuse economy-wide impacts that outweigh (by orders of
magnitude) the effects of the alternative activities considered. To guard against overstatement,
ecosystem impacts (such as tourism revenues) are undervalued. These results appear to indicate that
linkages to the natural resource sector (backward and forward multipliers) are important and
neglecting these may lead to underestimates of the economic significance.
There are of course a number of caveats and limitations of the analysis that need to be considered in
future research. First it would be useful to develop a regional and spatially differentiated CGE and
SAM, though this would be a large and resource intensive exercise. Additionally the bioeconomic
model could also need to be enriched by including labor supply in the household decision making. Our
preliminary analysis suggests that this adds algebraic complexity without changing the key results
(summarized in Lemmas 1 – 3). Finally the biological model could be improved by adding a stochastic
component to represent population dependence on rainfall, climate change as well as predator-prey
dynamics other forms of species interactions.
23
References
Fischer, C., Muchapondwa, E., & Sterner, T. (2008). A bio-economic model of community incentives for
wildlife management under CAMPFIRE. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(2), 303-319.
Government of Tanzania (2011) Unleashing Tanzania’s Growth Potentials – Tanzania Five Year
Development Plan 2011-2016.
Holdo, R. M., Galvin, K. A., Knapp, E., Polasky, S., Hilborn, R., & Holt, R. D. (2010). Responses to
alternative rainfall regimes and antipoaching in a migratory system. Ecological Applications, 20(2),
381-397.
Holdo, R. M., Fryxell, J. M., Sinclair, A. R., Dobson, A., & Holt, R. D. (2011). Predicted impact of barriers to
migration on the Serengeti wildebeest population. PloS one, 6(1), e16370.
Homewood, K., E. F. Lambin, E. Coast, A. Kariuki, I. Kikula, J. Kivelia, M. Said, S.
Serneels, and M. Thompson. 2001. Long-term changes in Serengeti-Mara
wildebeest and land cover: pastoralism, population, or policies?. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98:12544-
12549.
Johannesen, A. B. 2006. Designing integrated conservation and development projects
(ICDPs): Illegal hunting, wildlife conservation, and the welfare of the local people. Environment and
Development Economics 11:247-267.
Johannesen, A. B., and A. Skonhoft. 2004. Property rights and natural resource conservation. A bio-
economic model with numerical illustrations from the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. Environmental &
Resource Economics 28:469-488.
Johannesen, A. B., and A. Skonhoft. 2005. Tourism, poaching and wildlife conservation: What can
integrated conservation and development projects accomplish?. Resource and Energy Economics
27:208-226.
Kideghsesho, 2006 Who Pays for Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania http;dlip.indiana.edu/dic
Knapp, E. J. (2012). Why poaching pays: a summary of risks and benefits illegal hunters face in
Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 5(4), 434-445.
Knapp, E. J. 2007. Who poaches? Household economies of illegal hunters in western
Serengeti, Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12:195-196.
Loveridge, A. J., Reynolds, J. C., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2006). Does sport hunting benefit conservation.
Key topics in conservation biology, 224-240.
Mduma, S. A. R., Sinclair, A. R. E. and Hilborn, R. (1999), Food regulates the Serengeti wildebeest: a 40-
year record. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68: 1101–1122.
Polasky, S., J. Schmitt, C. Costello, and L. Tajibaeva. 2008. Large-scale influences on the
Serengeti ecosystem: national and international policy, economics, and human
demography. Pages 347-378 in A. R. E. Sinclair, C. Packer, S. A. R. Mduma and
J. M. Fryxell, editors. Serengeti III human impacts on ecosystem dynamics. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
24
Rentsch, D., & Damon, A. (2013). Prices, poaching, and protein alternatives: An analysis of bushmeat
consumption around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Ecological Economics, 91, 1-9.
Sinclair, A. R. E., and P. Arcese, editors. 1995b. Serengeti II: dynamics, management,
and conservation of an ecosystem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Sinclair ARE, C. Packer, S. A. R. Mduma and J. M. Fryxell, editors.
Serengeti III human impacts on ecosystem dynamics. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL.
Skonhoft, A. (1998). Resource utilization, property rights and welfare—Wildlife and the local people.
Ecological Economics, 26(1), 67-80.
Skonhoft, A., & Solstad, J. T. (1996). Wildlife management, illegal hunting and conflicts. A bioeconomic
analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 1(2), 165-81.
Stratton D (2012) Limits Exponential Growth in Case Studies in Ecology and Evolution, available at
http://www.uvm.edu/~dstratto/bcor102/readings/02_Logistic_growth.pdf
25
Appendix 1 Model Calibration
Total Serengeti Mara ecosystem (Sinclair et al 2008) 25000 km
SNP (Sinclair et al 2008) 14,763
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Sinclair et al 2008) 8,288
Maswa Game Reserve (Sinclair et al 2008) 2,200
Mara Reserve (Sinclair et al 2008) 1,672
A (derived see footnote 7) 6.006
α β (derived) .8
δ (assumed) 0.05
πL/πN (derived see below) 0.3
Φ (assumed) 0.91
q(max) (derived below and using Stratton 2012) 100 per km2
r (Stratton 2012) 0.18
πL (Serengeti.org) $400 per km2
τv (derived using footnote 13) 0.25
vv (derived using footnote 13) 0.5
πL
It is useful to recall that we find that a non negative value of wildlife growth requires: q ≥ if Lg ≤ Lnp and
rπ N
Lw = Lnp otherwise. Further the ratio between agricultural and hunting profitability is based on the following
πL ∂Π / ∂Lg NW
units of measure = = . The reproduction rate of 1.8 is from Stratton (2012). Suppose that
π N ∂Π / ∂ ( NW ) Lg
bushmeat hunting is around 60,000 wildebeest per year and the maximum allocation of agricultural land is
about 500,000 has , the ratio between land and poaching profits is about 0.12. With a reproduction rate of
r=0.18, this implies that the (maximum attainable) value of q must be greater than or equal to 66 animals per
km (or 0.66 per ha) of wild land, or about 1.4 times the present ratio of 0.5 (i.e. 1.2 million wildebeest on 2.5
million has of national park land). In turn, this means that the maximum carrying capacity of about 1.65 million,
which is close to the estimate of the carrying capacity in Stratton (op cit).
Appendix 2 Description of SAM and CGE Multipliers
The model is based on a SAM estimated on the basis of the GTAP data set supplemented by official and other
statistics. The basic model represents the Tanzanian economy with 10 economic sectors, 4 production factors, 2
institutions, Capital Formation and The Rest of the World, or , in more detail:
Our model represents the economy with 29 sectors. In the GTAP model the Natural Resources sector only
includes the value of the resources used by mining and extraction. The factor Land includes only cultivated land.
The GTAP SAM is augmented in to take better account of the Serengeti economy:
26
-The Masai represent over 1 million of Tanzania’s rural population and 4.5% of rural household. In the model we
hypothesize that the Masai consumption pattern is analogous to that of other rural households.
The value of tourism in 2010 is 1.3 billion US Dollars (source World bank database) and represent 20% of total
export. The sources of data are the National Statistic Bureau and the World Bank database. The international
tourist arrivals in Tanzania were 783,000 in 2010 and, on the basis of a large survey of tourist expenditure, it is
estimated that Tanzania earned US $1,23 billion in 2008, out of which US $160 million were from tourists to
Zanzibar. The survey results show that the overall average expenditure for holiday visitors who came under
package arrangement was US $209 per person per night, while that of non package was US $186 per person per
night. The average length of stay for visitors to the United Republic of Tanzania was 10 nights. The domestic
tourist numbers in 2008 are 639,749 with 280,000 going to National Parks of which 221,000 went to the
Ngorongoro crater. The rest visited museums and other sites. The value of the domestic tourism expenditure for
entrance to the attraction areas are estimated at about $500,000 per year. In the model this value is related with
the Dar es Salaam Household and other urban households
Travel motivation to Tanzania is wildlife, hunting and trekking for over 70% of international tourists, beaches
for 14%, a combination of the two for 10% and culture for 5% (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism).We
assume that 85% of tourism value is in the Park tourism sector and 20% Beach and Cultural Tourism.
Hunting
The animal population is estimated in 1.3 millions (wildebeest, zebras). The value of the sector in the SAM model
represents their “use value” for Tanzanian economic sectors, households and other institutions.
The value of household consumption of biodiversity (mainly by the Masai) represents legal and illegal hunting
on the part of residents. According to an estimate by Campbell, Nelson and Loibooki 23, the animals killed by
illegal hunting were 86400 in 2000. The revised estimates that we use for 2010 , including legal and illegal
hunting by residents, is about 102,000 animals per year. This is likely a large underestimate according to
popular commentary. The value of a single animal killed will change according to the different scenarios, as it
will depend on willingness to pay, GDP, composition of the kill among other things (Scandizzo and Cufari, 2013).
In particular, we assume a value of $300 per animal in the base case which is the average value of a domestic cow
in the Tanzania LSMS household survey.
A negligible part of hunting is assigned to other rural households sector.
Trophy hunting for park tourists
Annually over 90,000 people visit Serengeti and based on reports (Serengeti.org) we assume that 45% of these
do so to hunt. The average daily cost per person in a safari is $500, so that the value estimated of park tourism
use of animal biodiversity for an average 5 day safari is 112.5 million USD. The average costs for a 10 day hunting
license is $950 (Tanzanian Government Fee). This is presumed to be a significant underestimate as recording of
trophy hunting is incomplete a feature that is widely encountered in other rent-rich sectors.
Savanna and forest habitat
We assume that the Masai use 10% of the total area of Serengeti for agriculture. Using an average value of
hectares equal to 100 USD the value of Savanna and Forest habitat in Masai is 18 usd million.
Other sector related with the forest habitat are Agriculture, Mining & Extraction, Processed Food Labor-Intensive
Manufactures, Capital-Intensive Manufactures, Utilities and Construction and other rural Households.
The table below reports the results of our estimation of the Social Accounting Matrix for Tanzania for the year
2010
23
Sustainable use of Wildland Resources (2001)
27
Table A2. CGE Simulations (million US$)
Baseline 20% 20% increase Combined 20% Double Fines
Reduction in agricultural reduction in with 20%
carrying profits 15% carrying capacity, reduction
capacity and fall travel 20% increase in carrying
15% fall costs ag profits, 15% capacity, 20%
travel costs fall travel costs increase ag.
profits, 15%
fall travel
costs
Harvest (Value 750 409.31 265.31 141.48 292
in M$)
Tourism (Value 578. 458.28 427.21 285.56 341.52
in M$)
Value Added 26,461 25,233 25,451.23 24,429.4 24,946.44
(M$)
Change in Value - -1,227.37 -1,009.77 -2,031.60 -1,514.56
Added (M$) (-4.6%) (-3.8%) (-7.7%) (-5.7%)
Urban -434 -375.9 -730.5 -546.4
Households
(Change in M$)
Rural -763 -666.3 -1,278.5 -943.8
Households
(Change in M$)
In the simulations in A2 it is assumed that agricultural profits (economy-wide) rise by 20% and
connectivity costs decline through the economy by 15%, while there is a reduction of carrying capacity
of 20%. Simulations of other scenarios are in the Appendix and broadly reflect the finding of this
particular illustration. To guard against exaggeration of impacts the assumed benefits from the
proposed changes in the Serengeti are considerably higher than suggested gains, while assumed
impacts on carrying capacity is lower than suggested by recent demographic models. 24 These changes
would result in a reduction of proceeds from international tourists of $552 million per year (tourist
numbers go from 750,000 to 515,000, expenditure per day is $200 with 10 days average stay). GDP
changes by 7%.
Further Simulations for a 15% and 25% Fall in Carrying Capacity
Reduction in carrying capacity 25% 15%
Land -31,856 -16,4442
Labor -235,473 -112,752
Capital -209,57 -98,5808
Non renewable natural resources -6,39634 -3,12785
24
The assumed are far above what is suggested by proponents and considerably higher than what estimates suggest might
eventuate (see GoT 2011 and Holdo et al 2011)
28
Bush Hunting -0,9658 -0,49155
Trophy Hunting -30,9144 -16,7266
Savanna and Forest habitat -2,63916 -1,30501
Emissions -0,66305 -0,27004
Agriculture -181,976 -93,9374
Mining & Extraction -63,3495 -30,9783
Processed Food -173,674 -87,7371
Labor-Intensive Manufactures -38,0343 -19,6449
Capital-Intensive Manufactures -27,7367 -13,2987
Utilities and Construction -53,1282 -25,9805
Transportation & Communication -188,168 -69,794
Private Financial & Other Serv -115,079 -59,9747
Park Tourism -477,184 -258,186
Beach and Cultural Tourism -88,6355 -48,0243
Public Services -36,5007 -18,0473
Dwelling -42,1911 -20,2922
Dar es Salaam regior Households -99,4805 -47,3408
Other urban Households -162,44 -77,6345
Rural Households -251,306 -122,072
Masai -9,00539 -4,49052
Taxes and Government -13,5083 -6,7957
International Tourists -550 -300
Natural Capital -103,062 -51,4817
29