wildlife: a forgotten and threatened resource

Wildlife: a forgotten and threatened forest resource

Robert NASI, Nathalie van VLIET,

John E. FA 20 June 2016, Le Corum, Montpellier

Importance of wildlife Ecological• Keystone species• Ecological services

Economical• Local livelihoods, food security• Income generation

Cultural• Social bonding, redistribution• Traditional ceremonies, • Taboos

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

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

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

Public healthEmerging diseases 70% of human diseases are

zoonoses SRAS, Marburg, Lassa, Nypah EbolaNutrition 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

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)

The Bushmeat case

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

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

“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)

You have to have at least one square meal a day to be an environmentalist

(Borlaug)

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

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)

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

Economically significant and socially acceptable Largely non substitutable Gender differentiated Regulated but not controlled Poor’s people businessesBUT 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?

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

Repression only won’t work! “Laissez-faire” won’t work

either!

Is there a way forward?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

“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

“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

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

If you want to know moreRelevant sessions in ATBC 2016

Defaunation: a local process with global implicationsMonday 20, 11am, Pasteur (Level 0 & 1)

Subsistence hunting in the tropics: A coupled human natural system perspectiveThursday 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 Initiativewww.cifor.org/bushmeat

Pictures, infographics: CIFOR, Robert Nasi, Nathalie van Vliet, John E. Fa David Wilkie,

Liz Bennett, and Charles Doumenge