View
943
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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