The role of bushmeat in food security and nutrition

Robert Nasi1 and John. E. Fa21CIFOR,2Manchester Metropolitan University/CIFOR

OCTOBER 2016

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.

 

A widespread essential and socially acceptable informal sector… but de facto a criminal activity in most of the countries

Bushmeat

Size of the issue

In tonnes/meat/yearConsumption

Extraction

Amazon

909,000 1,299,000

Congo 3,198,000 4,569,000From Nasi et al. (2011)

K. Ammann

Economically significant 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?

2-2.5 billion15-20 million

5 million tonnes/year of bushmeat in the Congo Basin is equivalent to:

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)

From: Van Vliet et al. (2012)

Bushmeat is regularly eaten often in low but significant quantities

Example: rural and urban children in Kisangani, DRC, report higher consumption of bushmeat than any other meat.

Rural/Urban

5% 6%

2% 10%

11% 15%

5% 11%

20%/25%

But, what are the consequences on food security and human nutrition if wild meat resources are depleted?

Child Stunting

Source: Fa et al. i2015, Scien. Repor.

Bushmeat and Malnutrition

Sustainable protein supply from bushmeat in the Congo Basin:

6.5 - 13.0g/person/day now

0.4 - 0.8g/person/day in 2050 (given deforestation & population growth) Overall protein supply will fall from about 85g to 41g/person/day by 2050, due to reductions in bushmeat availability. This is 79% of the WHO recommended minimum of 52g/person/day.

A protein gap?

From: Fa et al. (2003)

A fat gap?

From: Siren & Machoa. (2008)

The suggestion from a study in Ecuador is that if wild meat and fish availability decreases, the most immediate and serious effect would not be a reduction in protein intake, but in fat intake.

Wild meat provides fat as well as protein. Fat is energy-rich, and contains vitamins. Dietary fat should supply at least 15-20% of the energy intake.

A micronutrient gap?

In a study of children under 12 y of age in rural northeastern Madagascar, consuming more wildlife was associated with significantly higher haemoglobin concentrations.

Removing access to wildlife would induce a 29% increase in the numbers of children suffering from anemia and a tripling of anaemia cases among children in the poorest households.

From: Golden et al.. (2011)

Gender issues• Plays a disproportionately

important role in the livelihoods and well-being of women (and children)

• Women play an important role in the different value chains of these products and derive crucial income from the sales

• Women generally invest back their income into household food and wellbeing; men more into non essential goods

Pygmies

HR20.4 ± 23.2 ind. P-1 Yr-1

376.3 ± 515.1 kg P-1 Yr-1

ER87.9 ± 109.9 ind. H-1 Yr-1

1646.6 ± 2095.7 kg H-1 Yr-1

Non-Pygmies

HR39.5 ± 66.9 ind. P-1 Yr-1

307.0 ± 450.6 kg P-1 Yr-1

ER162.0 ± 123.6 ind. H-1 Yr-1

1283.9 ± 1004.2 kg H-1 Yr-1

Pygmy – non Pygmy issues

H = HunterP = Person

From Fa et al. (2016)

A broader view and understanding of the nutritional contribution made by wild meat and of the implications to humans and environment is necessary.“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)

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

The key components,

determinant, factors, and processes of a sustainable diet.

Johnston et al. Adv Nutr 2014;5:418-429

Sustainable Diets: The aim

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

www.cifor.org/bushmeatforeststreesagroforestry.org