The harvest of forest wildlife provides invaluable benefits to local people, but understanding of such practices remains fragmentary. With global attention drawn to the issue of declining biodiversity, this talk assesses the consequences, both for ecosystems and local livelihoods, of the loss of important forest resources, and alternative management options. This presentation was given by Robert Nasi of CIFOR at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation.

1. Wildlife: a forgotten and
threatened forest resource
Robert NASI,
Nathalie van VLIET,
John E. FA
20 June 2016, Le Corum, Montpellier

2. Importance of
wildlife
 Ecological
• Keystone species
• Ecological services
 Economical
• Local livelihoods,
food security
• Income generation
 Cultural
• Social bonding,
redistribution
• Traditional
ceremonies,
• Taboos

3. Ecological aspects
 Extinction or extirpation of
hunted species
 Food chain feed–back and Allee
effects
 Potential pest outbreaks
 Changes in pollination patterns
 Changes in seed predation /
dispersion patterns
 Modification of vegetation
dynamics and biomass fluxes

4.  Potential food crisis;
malnutrition
 Deforestation or forest
degradation for alternative
sources of protein
 Unsustainable harvesting of
other wild resources (e.g. fish)
 Public health issues
 Loss of income, increased
poverty
 Loss of cultural identity
Socio-economic aspects

5. Gender dimension
• Plays a disproportionately
important role in the
livelihoods and well-being of
women (and children)
• Women derive crucial income
from the sales of wild
products
• Women invest back their
income into household food
and wellbeing; men more
into non essential goods

6. Public health
Emerging diseases
 70% of human diseases are
zoonoses
 SRAS, Marburg, Lassa, Nypah
 Ebola
Nutrition
 Wild food (greens, meat, fish) rich
in essential micro-nutrients
 Availability of wild meat or fish
from diet linked to anemia and
stunting rates in rural populations

7. Areas with more bushmeat extraction, more food
insecurity are also the areas most likely to be
affected by Ebola in central Africa.
Public health links
Areas of high bushmeat extraction/impact
Stunting is higher in children
From: Fa et al. (2015)

8. The Bushmeat case

9. Taxonomic composition of terrestrial vertebrates hunted for bushmeat in
tropical and sub-tropical habitats in different world regions. Full list of species in
Redmond et al. (2006). Recipes for Survival. Ape Alliance/WSPA.
Hunting and eating
meat of wild animals is
a widespread
essential and socially
acceptable … but de
facto a criminal activity
in most of the
countries
Bushmeat

10. The “Bushmeat Crisis”
 Empirical evidence
• Historical: hunting-related
extinctions (passenger pigeon,
American buffalo…)
• Today: local extirpation because
of hunting (for food or trade in
wildlife parts)
 Is “doomsday” coming?
• Not sure but there is a clear and
urgent sustainability problem
 Biodiversity but also
livelihoods of local people
are at stake

11. “Realistically, if changes in attitude do not occur
soon…a fitting epithet for the loss of [Sulawesi]
endemic mammals and birds may be 'they tasted
good” (O'Brien & Kinnaird)

12. You have to have at least one
square meal a day to be an
environmentalist
(Borlaug)

13. 2 billion 15 million
5 million tonnes/year of
bushmeat in the Congo Basin is
equivalent to:
 5 million tonnes of
bushmeat extracted annually
in the Congo Basin,
 2 million tonnes in the
Amazon Basin
 Europe produces 7,5 million
tonnes of beef per year
 Brazil produces 8,5 million
tonnes of beef per year
The scale of the
issue

14. REPUBLIC OF CONGO
GABON
CAMEROON
42.3
(108)
30.9
(85)
9.8
(122)
In Central Africa, financial
profits and gross
economic benefits from
the bushmeat sector
(Million €/yr) is high.
Numbers in brackets = Gross economic benefit (incl.
self-consumption)
From: Lescuyer et al. (2012)

15. 5% 6%
2% 10%
11% 15%
5% 11%
20%/25%
From: Van Vliet et al. (2012)
Bushmeat is regularly
eaten
Example: rural and urban
children in Kisangani, DRC,
report higher consumption of
bushmeat than any other
meat.
Rural/Urban

16.  Economically significant and socially acceptable
 Largely non substitutable
 Gender differentiated
 Regulated but not controlled
 Poor’s people businesses
BUT
 Unsustainable
 Resource base is degraded or capital depleted
 State has no revenues
 Corruption reigns
 LOSE-LOSE situation, everyone lose!
What is so special about bushmeat?

17. Barriers to management
 Knowledge of most of the hunted
species is, at best, minimal
 Stocks are very difficulty to monitor
 Tenure and access rights often
unclear or disputed
 Remains a minor “policy” issue

18. Repression only won’t work!
“Laissez-faire” won’t work either!
Is there a way forward?

19. Tackling the protein gap and the biodiversity
loss
 Solutions can only be combinations of various actions at
different points of the value chain and of the enabling
environment
 Actions need to be combined at various levels around three
main elements:
– Reducing the demand for bushmeat
– Making the off-take, supply more sustainable with proper
management of the resource
– Creating an conducive and enabling institutional and policy
environment

20. Acknowledge contribution
to food security and health
in national strategies
Include in national statistics
as a vital national economic
activity
Legitimize the
debate around
bushmeat
Manage hunting for
resilient species
Analyze both the livelihood and conservation
implications of a given intervention on all
stakeholders (including gender)
Review national legislation
for coherence, practicality
and to reflect actual
practices (without
surrendering key
conservation concerns)
A new menu Develop ways to
“formalize” parts of
the value chain

21. Improving sustainability of supply
 Hunter, rural consumers
– Negotiate hunting rules allowing harvesting resilient
species and banning vulnerable ones
– Define self-monitored quotas and co-construct simple
self-monitoring tools
 Research and extension services
– Develop and disseminate simple monitoring methods
– Understanding the “empty forest” syndrome:
• Role of source-sink effects in hunting areas; Competition and
substitutions effects on forest composition and structure
– Analyze relationships and trade-off between bushmeat
and other protein sources
• Bushmeat and freshwater fish consumption; domestic meat
(livestock, poultry…) footprints
• Is there a nutritional transition? Where? Into which
alternative protein source?

22. Improving sustainability of supply
 Extractive industries
– Enforce codes of conducts and include
wildlife concerns in companies’ standard
operating procedures
– Forbid transportation on company’s cars or
trucks
– Establish manned checkpoints (with
trained personnel) on main roads
– Provide alternative sources of protein at
cost
– Organize, support community hunting
schemes
– Adopt and implement certification

23. Reducing demand
 Hunters, rural consumers
– Develop alternative sources of protein
at a cost similar to bushmeat
– Improve economic opportunities in
productive sectors
– Use local media (e.g. radio) to deliver
environmental education and raise
awareness

24. Reducing demand
 Retailers, urban consumers
– Strictly enforcing ban of protected/endangered species sales and
consumption
– Confiscating and publicly incinerating carcasses
– Taxing sales of authorized species
– Targeted campaigns
 International consumers
– Instituting very heavy fines for possession or trade of bushmeat
(whatever the status or provenance of the species)
– Raising awareness of the issue in airports or seaports
– Engaging and making accountable airline or shipping companies

25. “Enabling” environment
 National policy makers and agencies (range states)
– Enhancing ownership, linked to tenurial and rights reform
– Legitimize the bushmeat debate
– Make an economic assessment of the sector and include in
national statistics
– Acknowledge contribution of bushmeat to food security in
national strategies
– Develop a framework to “formalize” parts of the trade
– Review national legislation for coherence, practicality and to
reflect actual practices (without surrendering key conservation
concerns)
– Include bushmeat/wildlife modules in curricula

26. “Enabling” environment
 International policies
– Strict enforcement of CITES
– Ensure wildlife issues are covered within internationally-supported
policy processes
– Link international trade with increased emerging disease risks
– Impose tough fines and shame irresponsible behavior
 Local institutions
– Negotiate full support of communities that have a vested interest in
protecting the resource
– Increase capacity to setup and manage sustainable bushmeat
markets
– Develop local participatory monitoring tools

27. CIFOR argues that since up to 80 percent of the rural households in central and western
Africa already depend on bushmeat for their daily protein requirements, a blanket ban on
the trade would endanger both humans and wildlife
Critics say:
 "They call for regulated but legal uptake of wildlife protein. Maybe, but just how can this
be done? There are no mechanisms to regulate this even with the best legislation."
 that CIFOR and CDB's idea of legalizing the bushmeat trade "shows remarkable naïveté
and totally fails to understand the realities on the ground. A hungry population is never
going to practice conservation of food, especially where it can be had free from the
forest."
 "Why don't people encourage the rearing of chickens, fish or cane rats to alleviate their
protein deficiency? This will bring development and a better and healthier existence."
the Good, the Bad and the Ugly…
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0925-hance_bushmeat.html

28. If you want to know more
Relevant sessions in ATBC 2016
Defaunation: a local process with
global implications
Monday 20, 11am, Pasteur (Level 0 & 1)
Subsistence hunting in the tropics: A
coupled human natural system
perspective
Thursday 23, 10:30am, Antigone 3 (Level
2)
Consumptive uses of wildlife in sub
saharan africa: the janus bifrons
syndrome
Thursday 23, 8am, Einstein (Level 0)
Bushmeat Research Initiative
www.cifor.org/bushmeat

29. Pictures, infographics: CIFOR, Robert Nasi,
Nathalie van Vliet, John E. Fa David Wilkie,
Liz Bennett, and Charles Doumenge