1

University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - UFR 11 Political Science

Professional Master Degree International Cooperation, Humanitarian Action

and Development Policies

2010 - 2011

Wild meat, livelihoods, and sustainability.

Addressing this issue within the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Pauline Quierzy, Intern at FAO, Animal Production and Health Division

Max - Jean Zins, Dissertation Director

2

Advertisement

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this dissertation do not imply the

expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the University of Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne. The

views expressed in this dissertation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the

University of Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this dissertation do not imply the

expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its

authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific

companies or products or manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that

these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are

not mentioned. The views expressed in this dissertation are those of the author and do not necessarily

reflect the views of FAO.

3

Wild ruminant bleeding, blood drunk by all Surma

warriors and carrying the carcass – Ethiopia, Omo

Valley (Courtesy of Fulvio Biancifiori -

info@photoreportageonline.com)

Rupestrian painting of a hunting scene – Libya,

Simien (Photo Pauline Quierzy)

4

Acknowledgments

I wish to give special thanks to…

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

My colleagues at the FAO who I have had the pleasure to meet from a number of different Departments.

Without their support, the development of the thoughts presented in this dissertation would not have been

possible.

The Animal Health and Production Division (AGAH), for their warm welcome and in particular the

Wildlife Unit: Scott, Tracy, Lindsey, Jennifer and Sergei.

Scott Newman, my internship tutor, for making me interested in this fascinating issue and offering me the

chance to work in the United Nations.

Sergei, for his philosophy and patience when exchanging ideas and for making me think in different

ways.

Samuel, for sharing his knowledge on wild meat with me from the early beginning of my work.

Jean – Michel, Stéphane, Robin and Philippe, for providing ideas and perspectives and helping me to

understand an international organization as well as their advice regarding my professional path.

Florence, for making me believe in my project despite many challenges.

Sigfrido, for his steadfast support in organizing the workshop on wild meat.

Fulvio, for sharing his passion for photographing peoples and cultures from all over the world.

Lindsey, and Anne – Sophie, for their precious help and sparkling energy.

Fanny, for bringing me into this UN adventure.

Marion, Lindsey, Morgane, Ludovic, Leonardo, and Paul, for all the coffee and cappuccino breaks, a way

of life that is no longer foreign to me.

Epke, Emily and Giacomo for sharing the “boiling atmosphere” of our office!

5

Sorbonne University

The teachers and students of the 2010-2011 CIAHPD promotion, with whom I have spent six wonderful

months reconsidering a range of issues around the themes of development and cooperation: the time spent

with them represents an important human and cultural experience which will forever influence my

professional life. Our discussions have pushed me to reconsider my opinions and become more critical in

my reflection. Special thanks go to Marie, Claire, Aurélie, Nora, Tania, Margaux, Michel Olivier,

Mathieu and Mathieu.

Professor Max Jean Zins, my dissertation Director, for giving me the taste to explore Asia (and India in

particular!) and to study a subject in as great a depth as possible; and for having the open-mindness and

curiosity to support my internship topic.

Family and friends

To my dear parents, my brother Nicolas, Camille, my grand-mother, and Babeth, for believing in me once

again and supporting my move back to the classroom. Thank you for understanding my desire to learn,

again and again.

To Lulu, who has definitely a taste for wild meat!

To Emily, for her unrelenting support.

To Florence and Gabriela, and to all my Italian friends, in particular those of Monti, Olimpia and Lapo,

who have introduced me to life in Italy: dolce vita!

To Claire, for the hours spent sharing our thoughts on our experiences of development agencies.

To Charlotte and Juliette, my unforgettable Parisian friends.

To my supporters from Auvers-sur-Oise: Delphine and Jérôme, Sarah and Yann.

To Woody Allen and Michel Petrucciani, my fellow co-workers, dedicated to the good cause!

“As is usually the case in science, answers bring about new questions”

6

Summary

The increasing levels of wildlife hunting and wild meat use for livelihoods is raising concerns,

through its implications on food security, health, food safety, and biodiversity conservation dimensions.

Finding solutions to achieve sustainable practices require a collective and coordinated vision. FAO, as a

specialised agency of the United Nations, can address this issue taking fully into consideration its

transversality across dimensions and disciplines. This necessitates expanding dialogue, converging

pragmatically within a common holistic approach, and recognizing the relevance of the issue in regards to

its mandate, strategic objectives, and core functions.

Key words:

Wild meat; bushmeat; livelihoods; sustainability; FAO; United Nations; international organization; food

security; zoonoses; health; food safety; biodiversity conservation; social sciences; hunting; wildlife;

dimensions; disciplines; transversality; multidisciplinary; coordination.

7

Contents

Acknowledgments p.3

Summary p.5

Key words p.6

Abbreviations and acronyms p.9

Introduction p.12

1. State of knowledge on the use of wild meat according to four

dimensions: p.15

a. Food security: p.16

i. Background p.16

ii. Science-based facts p.16

iii. Discussion p.24

b. Zoonoses: p.26

i. Background p.26

ii. Science-based facts p.26

iii. Discussion p.32

c. Food safety: p.36

i. Background p.36

ii. Science-based facts p.36

iii. Discussion p.43

8

d. Biodiversity conservation: p.46

i. Background p.46

ii. Science-based facts p.46

iii. Discussion p.54

2. Wild meat, livelihoods, and sustainability: transversal issues across

dimensions and disciplines: p.56

a. Where do the four dimensions meet? p.56

i. Linkages between food security and conservation p.57

ii. Linkages between food security and public health p.57

iii. Linkages between public health and conservation p.58

b. The value of social sciences in addressing the issue: p.59

i. Anthropology p.59

ii. Sociology p.61

iii. Political and economical history p.61

iv. Political sciences, economics, law, and international relations p.63

v. Social and moral philosophy p.65

3. Implications for FAO when addressing wild meat, livelihoods, and

sustainability: p.67

a. Expanding internal dialogue: p.67

i. Seeking cross-sectoral collaboration p.67

ii. Building a multidisciplinary working group p.69

9

b. Converging to support a common approach: p.70

i. From conservation to development and health: p.70

ii. FAO and One Health p.85

c. Recognizing the issue’s relevance to the FAO mandate: p.87

i. A cause for institutional dialogue at an international level: p.87

1. Poverty and the unsustainable use of wild meat: sharing

common underlying causes p.87

2. Governance and the unsustainable use of wild meat: managing

a common resource p.88

3. Unsustainable use of wild meat: a public health concern with

no boundaries p.90

ii. Working in line with the FAO objectives p.91

Conclusion p.93

Bibliographical references p.96

List of key websites consulted p.114

Glossary p.115

List of Annexes p.123

Table of contents p.147

10

Abbreviations and acronyms

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ADMADE Administrative Management Design Project

AGAH Animal Production and Health Division

ASF African Swine Fever

BTB Bovine Tuberculosis

BZP Buffer Zone Project

CAPSCA Cooperative Arrangement for the Prevention of Spread of Communicable Disease through

Air Travel

CAR Central African Republic

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CCHF Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever

CIB Congolaise Industrielle des Bois

CIC International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation

CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

COMIFAC Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale

CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort

CSF Classical Swine Fever

Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DFID Department For International Development, UK

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

EBH Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever

EBOV Ebola Virus

EIAs Environmental Impact Assessments

EIDs Emerging Infectious Diseases

EU European Union

EUTWIX European Union Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange

EZDs Emerging Zoonotic Diseases

FACE Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

11

FLA Fishing License Agreements

FMD Foot and Mouth Disease

FSA Food Standards Agency, UK

GEF Global Environment Facility

GVFI Global Viral Forecasting Initiative

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

ICDPs Integrated Conservation and Development Projects

IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare

ILAPS Illegal Import of Animal Product Seizures

IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

ITQs Individual Transferable Quotas

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

JGI Jane Goodall Institute

LMIC Low and middle-income countries

LTAR Long-Term Action Research program

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

NAO National Audit Office, UK

NGOs Non Governmental Organization

NHPs Non Human Primates

NPRS National Poverty Reduction Strategy

NSGRP National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty

NTFP Non Timber Forest Products

ODI Overseas Development Institute

OFAC Observatory for the Forests of Central Africa

OIE Office mondiale de la Santé Animale

PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PAs Protected Areas

PBAA Benin-German grasscutter rearing project

PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction

POAO Products Of Animal Origin

POST Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

12

PWM Participatory Wildlife Management

RMF Risk Management Framework

SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrom

SEAs Strategic Environmental Assessments

SFV Simian Foamy Virus

SIV Simian Immunodeficiency Virus

SRV Simian type D retrovirus

STLV Simian T-cell Lymphotropic Virus

SO Strategic Objective

SYVBAC Système de suivi de la filière viande de brousse en Afrique Centrale (Central African

Bushmeat Monitoring System)

TB Tuberculosis

TCM Traditional Chinese Medicine

TED Technology Entertainment and Design

UK United – Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees

USAID United – States Agency for International Development

VS Veterinary Services

VTEC Verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli

WCS World Conservation Society

WHO World Health Organization

ZEBOV Zaire Ebola Virus

ZSL Zoological Society of London

13

Introduction

There is an increasing concern about the use of meat derived from wild animals (in parts of Africa

known as “bushmeat”, hereafter referred to as “wild meat”) and its implications. Wild meat is defined as

any non-domesticated terrestrial mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians harvested for food (Nasi et al.,

2008). Wildlife hunting, the trade and consumption of wild meat have long been part of human history

and occur across a wide range of cultures, at various geographic and economic scales. Many types of

people hunt, from specialised rural hunters of forests, steppes or savannahs to non-specialized urban

hunters; and for various purposes, including subsistence, trade or recreation. The value of wild meat is of

economic, nutritional, ecological and socio-cultural significance; with culture defining the weight carried

by one of each dimension (Chardonnet, 2002).

Hunting patterns have gradually evolved over time; however, in the past two decades, the use of wild

meat has rapidly shifted from local community hunting or gathering for subsistence, to large commercial

enterprises, involving millions of tons of meat travelling long distances across international borders. This

changing dynamic has raised grave concerns among the conservation community, raising awareness about

these unsustainable practices that are leading large mammal species to the brink of extinction. The

concerns to date have been driven primarily through conservation advocacy. However, the implications of

unsustainable harvest for commercial purposes are much more complex and wide-ranging, and should not

been underestimated. Unsustainable levels of wildlife hunting could threaten not only wildlife

populations, but also people who depend on this natural resource for livelihoods, income, ecological

services, food security or health. Additionally, an associated risk of diseases emergence and transmission

through hunting and trading wildlife has been identified, as well as a risk of food poisoning from wild

meat consumption.

Wild meat related practices are at the forefront of the convergence of livelihoods and food security,

public health and biodiversity conservation in many developing countries. The search for policy solutions

to balance stakeholders’ interests for theses resources has emphasised the complex linkages between wild

meat hunting and wider issues of poor governance, inadequate land tenure and entitlements, poverty and

lack of livelihoods alternatives. The World Conservation Congress (WCS), Amman, 2000, reports

“wildlife populations and the livelihoods of people in many countries are threatened by escalating

unsustainable use of wild meat, driven by increasing demand due to human population growth, poverty

and consumer preferences, and aggravated by problems of governance, use of increasingly efficient

technology, and provision of hunting access in remote areas by logging roads”.

14

The use of wild meat is embedded in a complex cultural, political and economic context, with specific

drivers and mechanisms that defy any “single global approach”. Hunting for wild meat is a major

component of rural livelihoods strategies in the forests of West and Central Africa. Consumption of wild

meat occurs in remote areas in South America, where it remains a significant activity. In Asia, the rapidly

growing international trade in wildlife as exotic food and for medicinal purposes food is driven by a rising

demand in urban areas and Southern China. In Europe, Southern Africa and North America, hunting

wildlife is primarily leisure sport or associated with wildlife farming and ranching. Despite being an

illegal activity in major parts of the world, the trade of protected species wild meat has continued to thrive

and expand for number of reasons: growing populations of cultural and ethnic groups in most major urban

centers, urbanization, expansion of natural resource extraction activities, displacement of refugees,

disruption of local trading practices due to political instability, civil war or armed conflicts and

globalization.

For wild meat use to be sustainable, social, economic, public health, and ecological viewpoints must

be balanced. The solutions to the so-called “wild meat issue” have proven mostly ineffective thus far,

certainly because the achievement of sustainable practices requires a collective vision from different

disciplines and stakeholders, which is difficult to accomplish.

Within the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the issue has emerged

repeatedly over the past two decades, internally in different departments, and on the international scene

through various conferences1. The “wild meat issue” is considered by the organization to be a major

concern and is the subject of various publications and activities produced individually by distinct

departments and divisions. FAO experts and delegates express views and opinions on the issue but have

not converged pragmatically. Within the Animal Production and Health Division (AGAH), and more

particularly in the Wildlife Unit, specific concerns have been identified regarding the impact of wild meat

consumption on both human and animal health. The need to initiate studies on sanitary risks and eventual

disease transmission through wild meat use has been recognized, but it is important to conduct such

research within a broader discussion framework.

How can FAO address the wild meat issue in a new and a more comprehensive way? During my six-

month internship within the AGAH Wildlife Unit, my mission was to broaden the analysis of the issue to

better understand its complexity, at the end, to better address it. The methodological approach followed

included: 1. reviewing the existing wide-ranging literature on wild meat, livelihoods and sustainability;

1 Annex 1 - Extracts from the reports of FAO Regional Conference for Africa.

15

2. identifying main dimensions characterizing the issue and organizing the existing knowledge

according to these dimensions; 3. finding experts on each dimension within the organization to discuss

relevant trends and points of discussion of the ongoing debate; and, bringing these people together to

share their respective views, to identify interactions between the dimensions, and to find ways to address

them.

The objectives of this dissertation are three fold. In a first part, the state of knowledge on the use of

wild meat according to four dimensions; food security, zoonoses, food safety and biodiversity

conservation; will be reviewed. In the second part, the functional links between these dimensions will be

illustrated and missing disciplines, within them social sciences, identified. Finally, the implications in

terms of dialogue and approach for FAO to address this specific issue will be presented.

16

1. State of knowledge on the use of wild meat according to four

dimensions:

Despite increasing international attention on the wild meat issue, available information is still

fragmented, access is limited and no systematic approach to data analysis has been provided.

A preliminary work has been to conduct a comprehensive review of the existing literature on wild

meat, livelihoods and sustainability, using various sources of information (both FAO and non-FAO

materials) of different natures (conference reports, books, serials, websites of interest, non specialized

press, etc.). Beyond the use of these material resources2, FAO human resources were also valued. The

science-based facts were indeed supplemented with interview-based facts, provided through discussions

with colleagues across different departments and divisions, who have been working at some time on the

issue but were not necessarily experts. Special attention was paid to dialogue with people from different

nationalities (reflecting the global nature of the issue), backgrounds, and field experiences, who could

bring their professional and personal views into the debate3.

In the end, knowledge gathered was synthesised and organized from food security, public health, food

safety, and conservation viewpoints. Indeed, we have considered these aspects as key dimensions to take

into account while analysing this issue. Sharing knowledge and internal discussions captured, for each

dimension, the ongoing trends and concerns, to point out their antagonisms, synergies, and challenge the

existing literature by bringing new views and interrogations into the debate. A systematic approach is

adopted to present the data: presentation of the context, the facts and main talking points.

2 Opened in 1952, the David Lubin Memorial Library at FAO is considered one of the world’s finest collections of food,

agricultural and international development information, containing not only FAO’s institutional memory but also over 50-years

of accumulated agricultural knowledge and expertise among its one million volumes. The On-Line site allows to search its

extensive catalogue and FAO databases, as well as providing links to both FAO and other institutional electronic journals and

other sites of interest to FAO users.

3 Annex 2 - List of FAO contacts across Departments involved in discussions on the wild meat issue - Building an internal

transversal network.

17

a. Food security:

i. Background:

The use of wild meat is a consumptive use of wildlife, with either a nutritional, economic or

sociocultural value (Chardonnet, 2002). This practice, as old as humankind, has been a supporting

livelihood for most ancient civilizations and enabled survival for many (the hunter-gatherers, trappers,

reindeer herders, Inuits). Wild meat remains important to many developing countries and the sustainable

use of wildlife is fully recognised as legitimate by all international institutions and conventions (IUCN,

2000).

In the past decades, hunting for wild meat has evolved from a purely subsistence-based activity to a

more business-oriented one. Soaring wildlife offtake has raised concerns, including long term food

security and the sustainability of livelihoods associated with using wild meat. The international profile of

wild meat consumption has gradually evolved almost entirely into a negative perspective (Brown, 2003).

There is still a lack of detailed empirical evidence concerning the role of wild meat as food and/or

income in rural and urban households, but the debate is rich of conventional thoughts. Recent evidence

suggests that interactions are much more complex than previously assumed.

Who are the people that truly depend on wild meat, and to what extent? Does hunting for wild meat

respond to a food need or a food preference? Is it a necessity or a choice? Is it an adaptative strategy or a

coping strategy? We need to better understand the complex mechanisms and the drivers of hunting,

trading and eating wild meat, which are often site and people-specific.

ii. Science-based facts:

The use of wild meat: at the crossroads of nutritional, economic and sociocultural

purposes:

Wild meat has been a valuable resource for human beings since the earliest times. Today, its

importance as a source of food and income differs considerably according to each country. Inhabitants of

West and Central Africa have a particularly long tradition of using wild meat as the most common source

of protein in both rural areas and large cities; wild meat is preferred over livestock, and socially very

important. A Burundi woman reports: “the air would be filled with aroma of bushmeat cooking, and the

children would be happy and excited waiting for the tasty meal” (Jambiya, Milledge and Mtango, 2007).

18

Trade represents a massive market which financial value is difficult to appraise due to its informal nature.

In East and Southern Africa, wild meat consumption is widespread. Two situations co-exists: the official

sector: a small amount of game is produced through licensing and sold in butcheries as gourmet food at

relatively high prices not affordable to the majority; and the informal one: large quantities of meat are

obtained illegally and sold cheaply enough to be consumed by the low-income rural and peri-urban

people. Wild meat is relatively important as a protein source compared to domestic animals and fish,

varying between 6% in Southern Africa and 55% in Central Africa, of total protein consumption

(Chardonnet, 2002).

In the Neotropics, hunting remains an important subsistence activity but few data exist on commercial

hunting; the harvest is often sold as it has a high market value. By comparison, the demand for wild meat

in West and Central Africa is as much as four times greater than that in the Amazon Basin (Fa et al.,

1995) and the value of wild meat harvested in the latter exceeds US$175 million per year; in Ivory Coast,

the annual value of wild meat trade is estimated to be US$200 million.

Most people in the Far East Asia are very fond of wild meat. People’s Republic China consumes the

entire range of wildlife. Medicinal products from wild animals (zootherapy) are widely used in many

cultures, since ancient times, exemplified in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Unani medicine,

Indian Ayurvedic (Alves and Rosa, 2005).

In Northern countries, there is subsistence hunting in Northern native American cultures. Wild meat

also comes from the active wildlife farming/ranching industry. Hunting is still an appreciated recreational

activity. Occidental consumers, becoming aware of the health risks associated with the high levels of

satured fats present in conventional red meats, value the nutritive quality of wild meat (Fletcher, 1997).

In this chapter, we will focus our attention on the developing countries and particularly Central Africa

as the most documented region, where hunting for wild meat forms a major part of informal activities.

Since there is a ban on hunting to protect endangered species, hunting is this area is neither officially

registered nor even fully described; but quite well-organized.

The wild meat commodity chain:

The production and consumption of wild meat forms a supply chain with hunting households

classified as suppliers while purchasing households would be classified as consumers (Bassett, 2005).

Hunting is no longer confined to local villagers. Organized groups of hunters use new roads and

vehicles to penetrate deep into remote areas. Industrial trucks carry wild meat and hunters, reducing the

costs associated with supplying meat and increasing labour efficiency through the rapid transport of wild

19

meat to markets. Hunters are organized into associations, for instance the donzo ton in Ivory Coast, which

is highly decentralized and headed by the most senior member at the village level (Bassett, 2005). Traders

travel to rural communities where they buy almost any species that hunters bring to them, and then export

wild meat to nearby towns, established to support extractive industries or regional transportation hubs, or

and large even cities hundreds of kilometres away, including European capitals for instance. Urban-based

merchants and restaurants owners buy the meat, responding to a strong urban demand. This commodity

chain is complex and it is often unclear who controls it, sets the prices, and who simply acts as an agent or

intermediary.

Wild meat production (hunting, harvesting and trade) represents an activity with few barriers entry,

low capital required and high social inclusivity. Initiation is open to anyone, although it is almost

exclusively a male organization. In most situations, men do the hunting, but women take charge of all the

downstream processing and commerce, to the points of sale, including chop bars and restaurants which

are familiar features of urban area. Some authors describe the organization of such a chain, on which

many people rely, as a “success story” (Brown, 2003)4, recognizing wild meat trade as something to be

managed, not devalued.

Hunting wild meat to supply to markets is a response to expanding rural and urban populations. Will

this demand continue? Indeed, according to some authors, if current natural resources extraction

industries continue, there will be a significant decline in available wild meat protein by 2050 in the Congo

Basin, and there will be insufficient non-wild protein produced to replace the volume supplied by wild

meat. Maintaining protein supplies in this region are highly pessimistic simply because of the

uncontrolled increase in the human population. The extraction of wild meat can be seen as a density-

dependent phenomenon, extraction increasing linearly with human population growth. Projections show

that even if wild meat protein supply were reduced to a sustainable level, current non-wild meat protein

production could not supply enough meat to cover the needs of the Congo Basin population, apart from

Gabon (Fa, Currie and Meuuwing, 2003). The large-scale operation of extractive industries stimulates

local human population growth into areas that were formerly sparsely populated, altering the

demographics of rural communities, which influenced patterns of wild meat supply and consumption.

Over six years, populations of logging towns in Northern Congo rose by 69% and the biomass of wild

meat within these towns by 64%. Migrants and foreigners harvested 72% of animals recorded in markets

4 “The scale, vigour and penetration of this trade might be viewed in a highly positive light, as one of the great success stories of

autonomous food production in the developing world, and testimony to the resilience and self-sufficiency of its populations”

(Brown, 2003).

20

and along principal entry routes into logging towns, and local communities consumed 66% of all wild

meat. The relatively high salaries of rural workers employed by extractive industries provide the means to

drive the trade and increase purchasing power as well as leading to use of modern weapons, such as guns

(Poulsen et al., 2009).

If growing population appears to be globally a strong stimulus for market hunting, we need to better

understand the factors predisposing individuals to hunt, that is to say in which way this activity is

important for rural and urban livelihoods.

Incentives for hunting:

Even if urban demand and rural supply are interactive, we can distinguish the hunting drivers in rural

areas from urban areas.

In rural areas:

Do people hunt for food or income? Is wild meat valuable used for household consumption or market

sales?

A study in DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) indicates that wild meat is not a major component

in the diet of households, reporting a per capita consumption of wild meat of only 40 grams per day,

relatively low in comparison to previous studies in the Congo Basin, reporting that rural dwellers

consume daily 130 grams (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999a). A low consumption of wild meat within the

households can be explained either because the families cannot afford the equipment necessary to hunt, or

the meat hunted is sold for income. However, wild meat does become important in the diet during the lean

season when agricultural products are scarce and families are most vulnerable to food shortages.

Nevertheless, wild meat appears to be much more important as a source of income, with as much as 90%

indeed sold at markets. This enables the households to purchase important commodities such as medical

supplies (De Merode, Homewood and Cowlishaw, 2004).

A recent study in Equatorial Guinea also reports that wild meat is a significant, but not a major

component of household food. Frozen fish was the most commonly consumed, followed by dry/tinned

fish and frozen livestock but in this case, no seasonal patterns existed (Kumpell et al., 2010b).

Expenditure on different types of meat and fish types differed significantly from consumption patterns.

Overall expenditure on wild meat and fresh fish was proportionally low because families common capture

these wild foods. Hunters sold on average 90% of their wild meat and those hunters catching most

animals sold a greater proportion, as they were hunting predominantly for income. Hunters catching fewer

animals tended to be hunting for subsistence or crop protection. Wild meat and fresh livestock were on

21

average the most expensive food types, although the price of wild meat varied considerably. The more

marketable species (medium-large ungulates, pangolins, porcupines and monkeys) were sold, whilst the

smaller, less profitable species were consumed within the household or in hunter camps. At the village

level, hunting was the major income-generating activity for most men, contributing to some degree to

household food security, but to a greater extent to household income. The majority of local community

based hunter incomes fall into the lowest income category, although more intensive, organised and often

corrupt hunting of meat is exported regionally and internationally, and can be quite profitable.

Studies in Central African Republic (CAR) (Noss, 2000) and in Republic of Congo (Eves and

Ruggiero, 2000) share the same observations.

A study in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, reports that hunting is an important part of adaptative

strategies of people living adjacent to the park. Arrested hunters, coming from the poorest sections of the

community, report hunting to generate cash, to pay taxes, and make village development contributions to

purchase clothing or school supplies. A day’s hunting produced an average profit equivalent to between

70 to over 150 days of normal villagers’ earnings (Campbell, Nelson and Loibooki, 2001).

These adaptative strategies differ from coping strategies. In the latter, people hunt game meat not by

choice, but of necessity.

Do people hunt by choice or necessity? Is wild meat more valuable in worsening livelihood situations?

In Equatorial Guinea, when people were asked if they want their sons to be hunters, 90% of

respondents state emphatically, “no”. Given the lack of prestige or enjoyment in hunting, most men tend

not to hunt if they have alternative sources of income. Commercial hunting is better perceived as a

fallback livelihood, carried out when there is no viable alternative. People express a clear preference for

salaried income (such as working for a foreign company, restaurants or bars), partly due to the stability of

a monthly wages and partly due to higher status (Kumpell et al., 2010b). As incomes generating

alternatives are still scarce in rural villages, and not necessarily predictable, hunting remains a reality.

Wild meat provides a fallback supply of food or income when environnemental, economic or personal

crises occur. In DRC, wild meat consumption increases during lean seasons, which is also reported in

Mali and Ghana (De Merode, Homewood and Cowlishaw, 2004). Hunting is also a strategy for coping

with problems such as stock theft. A change in the age profile of wild meat hunters may be related to

increasing levels of rural poverty. Men considered as important or primary contributors to household

incomes are often forced to hunt to make necessary contributions towards financial security (Campbell,

Nelson and Loibooki, 2001). Hunting enables them to raise money for a funeral or to buy medicine. When

22

hunting for very specific purposes men use guns, if available, because they provide a more effective

technique compared to snares which are less reliable and profitable due to a lower yield over a given

period (Coad, 2010).

What is the relationship between wealth and/or income level and wild meat consumption?

Wealth is difficult to measure, incorporating social, political and economic dimensions and referring

to the long-term ability of a household to bear shocks. Wealth is distinct from income, which can be

defined in terms of short-term cash flow, or current household production (Homewood, 2005).

Traditionally for the Fang, signs of wealth are many wives and children and high agricultural capacity in

terms of fields and livestock. The perception of wealth is often confounded with factors such as status and

prestige and represents more than financial assets alone. Using wealth or total income to predict the

likelihood of hunting can lead to reverse causality if hunting is a large contributor to the household

economy. Hunting probability is related to non-hunting income. Thus in a situation where people are

hunting purely for income to increase short-term cash flow, rather than for reasons such as prestige or

tradition, wealth may not be a good proxy for income (Kumpell, 2010b).

Few studies have calculated the elasticity of consumption relative to income or wealth. A study

completed in South and Central America reports that an increase in income causes consumption of wild

meat to increase, but the effect is modest, suggesting that wild meat is a necessity or staple diet rather

than a luxury item for the rich (Wilkie et al., 2005). Wild meat consumption may decrease if household

incomes rises fast enough and high enough to shift wild meat. In the Neotropics, increase in household

wealth appears to drive a shift in preference for wild meat to the meat of domestic animals or to narrow

the range of species consumed. Studies in West or Central Africa suggest different choices associated

with increased financial security. A survey completed in rural and urban households in Gabon reports that

consumption of wild meat, fish, chicken, and livestock increased with increasing household wealth

(Wilkie et al., 2005). Furthermore, the effect of increasing household income as well as overall increased

expenditure on wild meat may cause a shift from trapping to gun hunting.

The relationship between wealth and wild meat has recently been reported, in the following manner.

Middle-income households benefit most from wild meat, whereas the very poorest and most wealthy

households do not receive income from wild meat (Starkey, 2004; Kümpel, 2010). The poorest have

restricted access to hunting, and poor communities lack fit adult males to hunt, whilst the wealthy have

alternative sources of income.

23

Increased market access does not necessarily provide increased trade opportunities for the poorest

households, and for high-value products, such as wild meat, increase in market access may shift use of,

and access to, wild meat towards richer households. There are not many data on the users and uses of wild

meat incomes by hunters and households. If hunting incomes is not used as an essential component of

household economies, then, a reduction in the commercial wild meat trade may not have a significant

effect on hunter livelihoods (Starkey, 2004). If, on the contrary, hunting incomes are used to purchase of

subsistence items, then declines in hunting income could severely affect hunter livelihoods. Where

positive correlations between hunting and wealth are observed, it is hard to determine the direction of

causation. Do wealthier households have better access to hunting equipment or does hunting make

households wealthier? It has recently been found that hunting households are wealthier (in terms of

assets) than non-hunting ones, but there was no correlation between hunting offtake and wealth.

Household wealth may be constraining participation in hunting, with poor households unable to access

wildlife resources either due to a lack of capable men or due to start-up restrictions created by the cost of

hunting equipment, which is relatively high for snares due to the number of snares required to produce a

hunting return that justifies the effort (Coad et al., 2010). Hunting itself may not be the main driver of

wealth accumulation.

De Merode, Homewood and Cowlishaw (2004) also report that the value of wild meat for both

consumption and especially market sales is greatest in the wealthier households. They conclude that

poorest households are not necessarily the most dependent on wild meat.

Is wild meat consumption dependent on its price or on the price of alternative meat based protein? Is wild

meat taste preferred over the others?

A conventional thought is that residents of the Congo Basin prefer the taste of wild meat over

domestic animals and that wild meat consumption is a deeply rooted tradition that is impossible to

change. Yet food studies have not established that consumers have clear taste preferences for wild meat.

The influence of wild meat price on purchasing decisions is undetermined and elasticity in wild meat

prices is poorly documented. On the demand side, two prices likely drive the consumption of wild meat:

the price of the meat itself and the price of close substitutes. Domesticated animals can be substitutes or

complement wild meat consumption. A study in lowland Amerindian societies suggests that consumption

of wild meat and fish responds to changes in their price, in that people consume less when prices are

higher. A decrease in the price of domestic animals meat is associated with a large decline in the

consumption of fish but not wild meat (Wilkie and Godoy, 2001). The own-price elasticity of demand for

wild meat is particularly high among wealthier households; any factors that lowers the marginal cost of

24

hunting is likely to increase hunting effort and its related effects. A survey completed in rural and urban

households in Gabon also reports that as the price of wild meat, fish, chicken, and livestock rose,

consumption declined. Although the prices of substitutes for wild meat did not significantly influence

wild meat consumption, as the price of wild meat increased and its consumption fell, the consumption of

fish rose, indicating that fish and wild meat were dietary substitutes (Wilkie et al., 2005).

In urban areas (logging towns and cities):

Urban consumers usually have the choice of several sources of protein but opt for wild meat for a

variety of reasons that vary between regions. In CAR, the poorest urban families often buy smoked wild

meat as the most available and cheaper source of protein, often from the less expensive species, and

consume it in very small quantities per day (Fargeot, 2010). In urban Equatorial Guinea, the situation is

quite different: the top three most preferred foods are all fresh fish or wild meat species, whereas the top

three most consumed foods are frozen mackerel, frozen chicken and frozen pork due to their lower cost

(Kümpel et al. 2010b). For the wealthiest families in Libreville or Yaoundé, the incentives for wild meat

consumption do not only depend on availability and prices. Such households consume less wild meat per

person per day than poorer households, but are less sensitive to prices and often choose fresh wild meat

(rather than smoked) and the more expensive species (porcupine, python) (Knights, 2008). Urban

consumers differentiate amongst wild meat species and wild meat cannot be treated as a generic food

source. Besides income, ethnicity and nationality are key determinants of consumption of wild meat. In

Bangui, CAR, purchasers of fresh domestic meat are more likely to be Muslims originating from

neighboring countries whereas wild meat consumers are most likely to be from local ethnic groups (A.

Constant, personal communication, 2011). In Cameroun, familiarity with the taste of wild meat due to

childhood experience is clearly a major factor in determining preference (S. Zombou, personal

communication, 2011). Wild meat is even traded in European capitals, sold in residential areas with

significant African populations. It is not surprising therefore that European residents who have their

ethnic and cultural origins in Central and West Africa and who are returning from a visit there would

bring wild meat for their own use and to share with relatives. Cultural preference for wild meat

encourages consumers to pay high prices for wild meat. For example, in India, popularity for wild meat as

a luxury good is soaring, people are willing to pay five times the price of domesticated animal meat

(Ravindran, 2008).

Meat hunted in wilderness, traded in rural areas, and marketed in cities satisfies human social needs,

support new consummatory habits, and stimulates an accelerating demand for wild meat. Urban demand

ranges from local towns to bigger ones. An active market has grown up to supply the needs of urban

25

dwellers (Bowen-Jones et al. 2002). Restaurants owners offer a variety of game dishes, considered by

consumers more tasty and nutritious, and as superior goods. A study in the region of Korhogo (the fourth

largest city of Ivory Coast) estimates 70% of wild meat hunt by rural community is sold to the Korhogo

merchant; another 20% is sold within the community, while the remainder, about 10%, is consumed by

hunters and their families (Bassett, 2005). This drain of wild meat from rural to urban consumers shows

that the scarcity of game in the countryside is relative to the purchasing power of socially differentiated

consumers (Fa et al., 1995).

The immigration wages linked to extractive activities influence hunting dynamics and wild meat

consumption in logging towns. Most companies fail to provide their workers with animal proteins,

logging taking place in remote areas, then they rely on wild meat. A study in a logging camp in northern

Congo reports an increase in demand for wild meat among logging workers due to disposable incomes

and few others dietary options. 76% of their meals contained wild meat. Household wild meat

consumption also increases in nearby villages from 39% of meals in unaffected villages to 49% of meals

in villages servicing the logging camp, presumably because of the increase in hunting income (Auzel and

Wilkie, 2000).

Some authors express concerns about the spread of wild meat supply from rural areas to the cities

because reversing wild meat demand in high density urban areas will become even more difficult, due to

the individualistic and multicultural complexity of social factors (Rose, 2001).

iii. Discussion:

According to the World Food Summit (1996), “food security exists when all people, at all times, have

physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutrious food that meets their dietary needs and food

preferences for an active and healthy life”.

Is wild meat a key element for food security among the poorest? The prevailing opinion is that wild

meat is an important contributor to food security (FAO/WHO, 1992; F. Egal, personal communication,

2011), up to 30-80% of the protein intake for forest dwellers in the Congo Basin (Koppert et al., 1996).

Our observations may reflect different definitions of poverty and a complex array of social and

economic factors that determine differential access to wild resources both within and between the

communities. However, we found that the poorest households “do not have (a complete) physical and

economic access” to hunting, due to low income, costly equipment or lack of fit adult men, and because

of a lack of entitlements. Even when the poorest have access to hunting, selling meat at the markets is

26

preferred over consumption as this source of income is most important to households. Rural households

differ considerably in their access to wild resources. An “entitlement” approach provides a useful

framework to explain the differential access of households to wildlife. Entitlements can be defined along

many axes, including the ability to harvest wild foods from the environment (determined by access to

tools), the ability to sell wild foods at the market (requiring a food surplus), the ability to purchase wild

foods at the market (limited by disposable income) and the ability to receive gifts (determined by social

networks) (De Merode, Homewood and Cowlishaw, 2004).

Undoubtedly, wild meat is recognized in both urban and rural areas as “a nutritious food that meets

dietary needs and food preferences”, serving multiple functions beyond the pure consumption. There are

cultural, spiritual and taste preferences that override predictions and patterns of behaviour captured in

economic models. Even where urban consumers have access to domesticated sources of meat, wild meat

remains an important item of their diet.

“An access to sufficient wild meat, at all times and for all” implies the use of wild meat to be

sustainable. Total consumption of wild meat worldwide is very large, being a major source of protein in

tropical forests and now a significant protein source in urban areas. To determine how much hardship the

poorest people will suffer if wildlife populations continue to decline, we need to distinguish clearly

between the use of the resource and dependance on it (Bennett, 2002). Correlates of forest peoples facing

real problems when wild meat stocks decline include: remoteness from markets; a lack of cash coming

into the community; lack of neighbouring communities of the same or other ethnic groups with whom

they have a good relationship and from whom they can learn farming skills; cultural difficulties.

The need to identify precisely the real value of wild foods in rural communities is gaining importance

in both the conservation and development literature. Without such information, the ramifications of any

policy response to the wild meat issue are not clear, either in development to contribute to food security

or in conservation terms. Poverty is complex and it would be naïve and impractical to expect sustainable

use of wild meat by itself, to contribute a realistic means of eliminating poverty. Access to wild meat

could be seen as a symptom of poverty, not the cause. Humanitarian agencies often use household

reliance on wild foods as a primary indicator of impending famine (Young, 1992), but it is also known

that cultural, economic, social preferences also contribute to the choice of consuming wild meat.

The “safe” nature of wild meat for a “healthy life” will be discussed in the two following chapters.

27

b. Zoonoses:

i. Background:

Infectious diseases account for 16% of global deaths (WHO, 2008); 60% of emerging infectious

diseases (EIDs) of humans are zoonotic; of these, 75% originate from wildlife (Woolhouse, 2002). Over

the past three decades, agents responsible for global pandemics such as HIV (Human Immunodeficiency

Virus) - AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) and others diseases that cause high case-fatality

rates (e.g. Ebola virus (EBOV), SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome)-associated coronavirus) have

been reported to have emerged from hunting wildlife and/or butchering wild meat.

Hunting and consuming wild meat have been part of human life for at least six million years. It entails

close human contact with vertebrate and microbial diversity, which is a biologically ancient phenomenon.

Interestingly, pathogens invading new hosts appear to have increased over the past decades. Zoonotic

pathogens emerge through successive invasion, establishment, and persistence steps, which a complex set

of circumstances that human behaviour contributes to. An ecological threshold has been crossed due to

contemporary human behaviors, resulting in fundamental changes in host population’s structure and

dynamics, increasing substantially, the probability of contact and pathogen spillover during hunting

(Field, 2009).

The risk of emergence or (re)-emergence of zoonotic diseases (EZDs) from hunting and eating

wildlife is still of global importance (Wolfe et al., 2000); it may lead to important public health and

economic problems in the near future. Now, more than ever, it has become clear that we must be capable

of addressing such threats.

FAO has recommended, “initiating studies on sanitary risks and eventual diseases transmitted

through bushmeat consumption” (FAO, 2004). This chapter highlights the complex multifactorial set of

activities contributing to disease transmission associated with hunting and butchering. Indeed, we make

the distinction between the food safety health threats (food-borne zoonoses) associated with consumption

(involving a contact with wild meat as a food commodity) – See Chapter c.: Food safety – and disease

risks associated with contact with the living or freshly killed animal.

ii. Science-based facts:

Hunting includes activities of tracking, capturing, handling, killing, sometimes basic field butchering,

and transporting of the carcass. It involves direct contact with potentially infected tissues and body fluids,

28

whereas distant consumption may not. Butchering includes activities of opening, cutting, dressing and

preparing the carcass. It is obviously more risky for bloodborne pathogens than the transportation, sale,

purchase and consumption of butchered meat.

The global emergence of a zoonotic pathogen requires three steps. First, the invasion: the pathogen

must be successfully transmitted between a wild reservoir and humans. This step generally implies

repeated transmissions of non-human viruses to humans (the phenomenon is called “viral chatter”), most

of which results in no human-to-human transmission. Then, the establishment: the pathogen must be

directly transmitted between humans. Finally, persistence: the pathogen must move from a local epidemic

into the global population.

Access to once remote locations is a major concern associated with extractive industries which

increase environmental destruction and enable people to penetrate habitats that are normally not heavily

occupied by people. This brings people into closer contact with wildlife and facilitates wildlife being

brought onto urban centers. To support the growing communities living around extractive industries sites,

and the increasing demand for wild meat, levels of hunting are increasing, most of time within the same

region. This favours the pathogen invasions into humans. Secondly, increasing densities of human

populations in urban centres close to hunting areas and the increasing rates of movement of people

between village, town, increase the risk of establishment; thirdly, increased travel or migration and

international commerce facilitate the global spread.

In this section, we will discuss how complex combination of hunting and butchering practices,

contemporary human behaviours, and viral dynamics, lead to EZDs and increased health threats to

humans.

Human encroachment on forest habitat: how deforestation and hunting led to the

emergence of retroviruses (SIV/HIV/SFV): focus on Congo Basin:

Encroachment of humans into forests for logging provides opportunity for novel zoonotic pathogen

exposure. Clear cutting (used in South-east Asia) may be less likely to result in zoonotic emergence than

selective extraction (practiced in Central Africa) because of the relatively low contact rate between people

and wildlife. Selective extraction is also more likely to sustain natural diversity of wildlife than clear-

cutting (Fa, 2002) and therefore, sustain pathogen diversity associated with wildlife populations.

Constructing roads, which transport workers into relatively pristine forest regions and provide increased

contact between low-density, remote human populations and urban populations with access to

international travel, allows locally restricted pathogens to potentially spread globally and ultimately

29

exposing. As forest edges adjacent to roads are degraded, wildlife movement between forest patches

decreases. This process contributes to the loss of vertebrate reservoir host species richness, and may result

in increased abundance of highly competent reservoirs of some zoonotic agents, increasing the risk for

transmission to humans. Fragmentation may increase the functional interface between human populations

and reservoirs hosts. Since hunting activities traditionally radiate in a circular fashion from isolated

villages, roads provide an increased number of points at which hunting activities can commence,

changing the pattern of human contact from a circular pattern to a banded one (Wolfe et al., 2005a).

The Congo Basin is a representative region where such extractive industries exist and from which a

range of notable zoonotic pathogens have emerged: HIV, Ebola and Marburg viruses, and monkeypox.

The emergence of HIV-1 in the human population is most likely the result of contact with infected

blood or tissues through hunting and butchering non human primates (NHPs). Several strains of Simian

Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) are thought to have separately crossed over from African monkeys and

apes into humans and after a long period of incubation, evolved into HIV. Each strain has different

pathogenicity, with HIV-1, from Central Africa chimpanzees, being the most virulent, which has now

spread to millions of people around the world. The virus most closely related to HIV-1 is a SIV, thus far

identified in captive members of the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes. Keele et al.

(2006) have provided, for the first time, a clear picture of the origin of HIV-1, establishing Pan

troglodytes troglodytes as a natural reservoir of HIV-1. Mindell has argued that HIVs and SIVs should be

referred as “primate immunodeficiency viruses” to more accurately reflect their heritage (Mindell, 1996).

HIV emergence is the result of a complex set of largely ecological and sociological changes in Africa,

including deforestation, expanding human populations, rural displacement, urbanisation and its attendant

poverty, sexual behaviour, parenteral drug use, and increased local and international travel. HIV - AIDS

ranks as one of the most important infectious diseases facing humankind in the 21st century; HIV-1 has

infected more than fifty million individuals and the rate of new infections is estimated at nearly six

million per year (UNAIDS, 2009).

The recognition that HIV - AIDS originated as a zoonosis heightens public health concerns associated

with human infection by simian retroviruses endemic in NHPs, including SIVs, simian T-cell

lymphotropic virus (STLV), simian type D retrovirus (SRV), and simian foamy virus (SFV).

A study on primate wild meat in Cameroon has shown for the first time that a significant proportion

of hunted primates were SIV infected (Peeters, Courgnaud and Abela, 2002). High rates of ongoing

exposure to NHPs, through hunting and butchering in rural villagers in forest sites in Cameroon were also

reported. Wounds, abrasion, cuts or other injuries sustained by hunters, and close contact with blood,

30

organs and other tissues during the hunting and butchering of wildlife demonstrates the mechanism by

which zoonotic pathogens may be transmitted. Studies show an ongoing exposure of humans to a plethora

of genetically highly divergent SIVs (Wolfe, Prosser and Carr, 2004; Kalish, Wolfe and Ndongmo, 2005).

Cross-species transmission of other retroviruses has also been documented among hunters (Wolfe,

Switzer and Carr, 2004). It can thus not be excluded that simian lentiviruses from primate species other

than mangabeys, chimpanzees and/or gorillas, have been or will be transmitted to humans. More detailed

analysis of SIV prevalence and diversity in wild primate populations as well as sentinel surveys among

humans frequently exposed to primates are needed. SIV lineage specific serological assays need to be

regularly updated as new lineages are discovered; they permit detection to define with greater accuracy,

existing SIV reservoirs and associated human zoonotic risks (Aghokeng, Liu and Bibollet-Ruche, 2006).

The risk for additional-species transmissions is not equal throughout Cameroun and depends on hunted

species and SIV prevalences in each species (Aghokeng, Ayouba and Mpoudi-Ngole, 2010). In addition,

high HIV prevalences in remote areas could lead to recombinants between HIVs and SIVs and allow

more efficient adaptation and replication in the new host. One major public health implication is that,

these SIV strains are not always recognized by commercial HIV-1/HIV-2 screening assays, and as a

consequence, human infection with such variants can go unrecognized for several years and lead to

another epidemic/pandemic.

Human infections with SFVs have been reported after exposure to infected NHPs and their tissues,

blood, and body fluids, and in a few hunters in Cameroun (Switzer, Bhullar and Shanmugam, 2004;

Switzer, Salemi and Shanmugam, 2005; Boneva, Switze and Spira, 2007). The efficient transmission of

SFVs to human, specifically following ape bites, and its persistent have been demonstrated in natural

settings in Central Africa (Calattini, Betsem and Froment, 2007); the infection seems to be latent with no

evidence of virus transmission between humans (Williams and Khan, 2010).

Given the ongoing contacts between infected NHPs and African populations through hunting and

butchering, together with the increase in wild meat trade related to increasing presence of logging

concessions and growing rural and urban populations, it is likely that cross-species transmissions are still

occurring. Such zoonoses are more frequent and widespread than previously appreciated (Wolfe, Heneine

and Carr, 2005b; Kalish et al., 2005), clearly demonstrating an important health issue in the wild meat

debate.

Opening new areas: how roads construction and increased movements of peoples and their

animals from neighbouring communities led to tuberculosis (TB), Anthrax and Ebola

cases: focus on Sub-Saharan Africa:

31

Bovine tuberculosis (BTB);

Disease frequently passes from livestock to wildlife and from livestock to humans. But BTB

transmission from wildlife to humans has been insufficiently studied in Sub-Saharan Africa, where wild

meat consumption prevails (Hotez and Kamath, 2009). It is speculated that human populations also

become infected through the handling and consumption of wild meat, with the most likely mechanism of

infection to humans being the cutaneous route (cut, abrasion), associated with wildlife slaughtering.

Dressing carcasses is more commonly done in the field by men, who deal with heavy species (e.g.,

antelopes, bushpigs), while small species, such as primates, rodents, and reptiles are more likely to be

dressed by women in the markets. Overcooking meat is a common measure used to prevent gastro-

intestinal infections in African countries, which limits oral transmission. TB is a major opportunistic

infection among HIV-infected populations in Sub-Saharan Africa, where six million of co-infected people

live. Approximately 50% of African cattle live in countries without control measures for the diseases

(Etter et al., 2006). Surveillance for BTB in wild meat markets could provide greater insight to the

potential role infected wild meat has on this public health burden.

Anthrax:

In Taï National Park, Ivory Coast, sudden chimpanzee deaths were related diagnosed as anthrax,

which then can be found in NHPs living in a tropical rainforest, a habitat not previously known to harbour

Bacillus anthracis. Chimpanzees could have become infected through ingestion of spores from

contaminated water. Isolated cases of anthrax have been imported to other parts of Ivory Coast by

transporting animals from anthrax endemic countries. Indeed, owing to deforestation, cattle transports

from Mali and Burkina Faso have passed close to the border of the Taï National Park. This case

represents substantial threat to human health through wild meat consumption (Leendertz et al., 2004).

An outbreak of Ebola in chimpanzees in Taï National Park was first described in 1994 (Le Guenno et

al., 1995). The timing of the outbreak, just after the rainy season, raised suspicion that the virus is present

in an insect or other arthropod host and is transmitted through an intermediate mammalian host (Morell,

1995). It might be an unidentified species of rodent whose population has boomed since 1990, when

Liberian refugees, escaping civil war, began streaming into camps near the park, with their domestic

animals and other commensal organisms, disrupting the forest ecology by clearing and cultivating fields

within the park. The environmental and climatologic perturbations in the park could have combined to

change the demographic parameters of the Ebola reservoir or some aspects of its behaviour.

32

Human encroachment through expanded urbanization: how wet markets and butchering

led to the emergence of a new coronavirus: focus on Asia:

Urbanization is intensifying worldwide, with two-thirds of the human population expected to reside in

cities within thirty years; cities serve as significant hubs of pathogens introduction (Bradley and Altizer,

2006). In South-east Asia, urban wet markets are very popular and concentrate people, domestic and wild

animals usually caged and killed at the market with slaughtering and butchering usually performed in

front of customers upon request, with poor biosecurity. Animals come in direct contact with sales clerks,

butchers and customers. These markets, as intensive milieu, may offer an ideal setting for pathogens to

jump to new host species.

The pattern of the Guangdong SARS epidemic in 2002 is consistent with the classical process of

zoonotic emergence (Xui et al., 2004). The virus involved is not closely related to any previously

characterized coronaviruses and was isolated from Himalayan palm civets whose meat is considered a

great delicacy. Evidence of infection has been found in a raccoon dog, Chinese ferret badger, and humans

working at a live animal market (Guan et al., 2003). Many of the earliest cases of SARS were people

closely associated with wild meat trade ranging from handling, butchering, selling and even preparing and

serving civet cat meat (Ng Chi-yan, 2005; Wang and Eaton, 2007). The traditional practice of using

wildlife for food and medicine, largely observed in southern China, offers an effective bridge from a

natural animal host to humans. Studies failed to find any evidence of widespread infection in civets or a

variety of animals traditionally used as food in China (Tu et al., 2004). Since an outbreak of SARS was

averted in 2004, many novel coronaviruses have been recognized from different species, including

humans. Infection with SARS-like coronaviruses in insectivorous horseshoe bats was reported by two

independent research teams (Lau, 2005; Li, 2005). Bats may play an integral role in the ecology and

evolution of coronaviruses, with high genetic diversity and high prevalence across a wide geographical

distribution, possibly with asymptomatic or persistent infection (Tang et al., 2006). In the Guangdong

case, the civet cat is thought to be the intermediate host enabling the virus to pass from bats to civets to

people.

In many parts of the world, bats serve as a source of wild meat, highlighting the risk for pathogens to

move directly from bats to people, or from bats to intermediate hosts to people. It is suspected in SARS

and also Henipah virus transmission to people in Malaysia.

Urbanization in Africa is increasing rapidly, with high population densities, and encroachment of

natural habitats. This migratory bat is common across sub-Saharan Africa and lives in large colonies,

often situated in cities. It is a source of wild meat in some regions, then further studies should determine if

33

it forms a reservoir for EBOV from which spillover infections to the human populations may occur

(Hayman et al., 2010). Direct bat to human transmission of EBOV has been reported (Leroy et al., 2009).

In Madagascar, they are reported to occupy the roof spaces of schools and hospitals (Jenkins and Racey,

2008).

Zoonoses are not limited to viral and bacterial transmission. A recent study, the first in its nature,

highlights the parasite diversity in Central African monkeys and the potential threat of zoonotic

transmission, through wild meat consumption. Some hookworms are transmitted transcutaneously by

infectious larva during butchering (Pourut et al., 2010).

Recreational hunting: how high densities of preys and hunting put both humans and

domesticated animals at risk: focus on Europe/America:

Growing popularity of recreational hunting in Europe and North America exposes humans to zoonotic

infections. Recently, such activities have promoted concentrations and large-scale export of wild animals

such as hares from Poland (possible reservoir of tularaemia and brucellosis transmitted through the

handling of infected carcasses (Bourque and Higgins, 1984)); rabies-infected racoons in the United States;

wild boar (reservoir of Brucella suis) in Belgium (Gibbs, 1997). Such practices, by providing large

quantity of reservoirs, provide the zoonotic risks.

Over the centuries, wild boars has been viewed as a recreational hunting species and a source of wild

meat, including throughout the world wild boar, warthog, bush pigs and peccaries. Field dressing of the

carcass and meat consumption may transmit the following bacterial zoonotic infections: Brucella,

Salmonella, Escherichia coli and Mycobacterium bovis (Gibbs, 1997). Brucellosis is an important

zoonotic disease (Godfroid, 2002) acquired from wild boars in the United States, Australia and Europe;

and re-emerging in humans in Queensland because of the recreational exposure to wild boar (Robson,

1993).

iii. Discussion:

The global pandemic of HIV, presumably originated from primate-borne viruses and transmitted

through wild meat consumption dramatically illustrates how a pathogen not previously encountered by a

host species (humans) can spread rapidly throughout the population, infecting tens of millions of

individuals around the globe in only a couple of decades.

Other wild meat derived pathogens may not have become persistent in the human population but have

34

successfully been transmitted to people (SFV) and in some cases have subsequently been transmitted

among humans (monkeypox; Ebola).

Lessons learnt are at least for three-fold:

Preventing:

Socioeconomic conditions, such as a lack of hygiene, informal trade, lack of veterinary inspection and

food safety services, lack of disease awareness, can be considered as risk factors for bushmeat traders,

butchers, hunters, and middlemen to become infected. “Butcher wild meat with care” campaigns should

be initiated to prevent risky practices, focusing on the transmission pathways of viral (HIV, EBOV,

coronavirus), bacterial (TB, anthrax) and parasitic diseases that have previously infected humans.

Perceived risk is more likely to change behavior when there is an obvious connection between the

risky behavior and personal health. Retrovirus infection implies a delay before the onset of symptoms,

making difficult, a direct association between the causative agent and the actual disease. Even when a

behavior is perceived as risky, people have been known to underestimate their risk in cases where hazard

is natural or uncontrollable (Gardner and Stern, 1996). Underestimation of risk contributes to denial of the

hazard and continued practice in the risky behavior, adding challenges to an outreach campaign. When

the risky behavior is associated with a beneficial activity, the threat must be large enough to warrant a

great sacrifice or an alternative behavior must be easy to adopt. Winning the support of religious, cultural

and traditional leaders in each village is of importance and could be strategic in such a wild meat disease

campaign.

While men are more likely than women to hunt wild animals, women are more likely than men to

butcher and prepare carcasses. Because of differential participation in risk activities by men and women,

gender-based interventions may be appropriate.

Predicting:

Microbes are likely to emerge from the interface of high microbial biodiversity (the “zoonotic pool”)

and interconnected human populations. Second, microbes are likely to emerge from microbial media,

which are nearly identical to human organ systems, with risks increasing for vertebrates who are closely

related to humans. Third, microbes are likely to emerge from scenarios involving a high frequency of

contact or a high intimacy of contact between microbial media and humans.

As a first consequence, innovative measures to improve vigilance needs to be focused in biodiversity

hotspots (tropical forests of Congo Basin, Amazonia, Madagascar, Southeast Asia) and regions such as

35

tropical countries with growing populations where encroachment into previously wild areas is creating

closer contact between people, domestic and wild animals. These locations can be characterized by

intensified and expanding agriculture production, high biodiversity, high human density or expanding

extractive industries in naturally biodiversity ecosystems. Some countries included are India, China, the

DRC, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Ethiopia where, according to a 2008 report by FAO, 65% of

the world’s hungry live (FAO, 2011).

Members of the family Hominidae (including humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas) share

even greater similarity in susceptibility to microorganisms (Wolfe, Prosser and Carr, 2004). Hunting and

butchering NHPs is a biologically ancient behavior that we share with chimpanzees; and have been linked

to the transmission of Ebola, monkeypox, SIV and SFV. As another consequence, the frequency of

behavior involving exposure to NHPs, which remains largely unknown, needs to be assessed. In

Southeast Asia, where primates have become incorporated into religious mythology and local culture,

some temples have become refuges for populations of primates and account for more human-primate

contact than any other context, making them ideal places to investigate cross-species transmission of

infectious agents (Fuentes and Gamerl, 2005).

Effective strategies to reduce NHP hunting are critically needed to prevent the transmission of

additional primate pathogens. Previous examples have shown that indirect hunting reduction decreases

significantly the occurrence of the disease. For instance, the endemic monkeypox situation in Africa in

the 1980s and 1990s increased slightly as a result of many years of war, when people relied heavily on

subsistence hunting. With subsequent changes in lifestyle, due to increasing urbanisation and intensified

agriculture over recent years, the reported incidence of monkeypox in Africa has decreased (Jezek et

al.,1986).

A global early warning system to monitor pathogens infecting individuals exposed to wild animals,

focusing on those highly exposed, such as hunters, an innovative approach. Within the Global Viral

Forecasting Initiative (GVFI), monitoring is being done in Cameroun with trained hunters taking blood

samples from their kill; blood samples are taken from the hunters themselves so as to monitor any

evidence of cross-species viral infection with their prey (TED, 2009). The study is now expanding to

other continents. This monitoring will not only serve as an early warning system for disease emergence,

while also provides a unique archive of pathogens. Specimens from such highly exposed human

populations are screened specifically for agents known to be present in hunted animal (retroviruses among

hunters of NHPs), as well using generically broad screening tools such as microarrays (Rönn et al., 2009)

and random amplification polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Wolfe et al., 2007).

36

Expanded demand for wild meat will likely lead to changes in the exposure of humans to potentially

zoonotic microbes. Therefore, assessing the risk that wild meat extraction and consumption pose to public

health will include an assessment of the economy and geography of wild meat supply and demand (Wolfe

et al., 2005a). Periodic surveillance centered on cities with large human populations and commerce in

wild meat could represent a useful approach for detecting novel transmission events. Systematic

virological surveillance in markets for understanding the evolution and emergence of viruses (TB in

Africa, coronaviruses in Asia) with infectious potential is relevant (Dong et al., 2007). The successful

prevention of a second SARS outbreak in early 2004 resulted from early detection of the virus in live-

animal markets in southern China.

A better surveillance of certain populations is of relevance, for example bats, representing 20% of all

mammal diversity may not have been sampled before because they are nocturnal, and perceived contact

with humans was low, are of importance and receiving attention now (Kuzmin et al., 2010). They live in

large colonies with close contact between individuals, life-history traits that might select for endemic

infections. Humans are moving into bats environments, and bats have to adapt to sharing (or being

brought into) man-made environments (Bennett, 2006). Furthermore, agricultural practices may be

attracting bats to areas of livestock production (FAO). Consumption of bats by many cultures is another

direct health risk.

Understanding:

Wolfe proposes an “origins initiative” to resolve disputed origins of major human infectious diseases,

among them AIDS and tuberculosis. The effort would involve systematic sampling and phylogeographic

analysis of related pathogens in diverse animal species, including wild species whose contact (direct in

case of wild meat) with humans could possibly have led to human infections (Wolfe et al., 2007).

For infection to be eliminated, diseases control measures would need to be directed at reservoirs,

which remain loosely defined for most EIDs agents. An understanding of reservoir infection dynamics is

essential (Haydon et al., 2002). We should learn more about the roles of the various bats species in the

maintenance of coronavirus infections. Are all these bats endemic hosts, or some spillover hosts? A

positive outcome will greatly enhance our understanding of spillover mechanisms, which will in turn

facilitate development and implementation of effective prevention strategies (Wang, 2006). The concept

of “liaison hosts” is also of importance: the bat SARS viruses were most likely amplified in palm civets

rather than being directly transmitted from bats to people (Bennett, 2006). In considering the diversity of

species and the habitats that they occupy, large populations sizes and densities, and the ability to migrate,

bats appear to be ideal candidates for the natural reservoirs of many coronaviruses. An Ebola outbreak in

37

DRC in 2007 was connected for the first time to fruit bats exposure, a potential reservoir for EBOV

needing to be further explored (Leroy et al., 2009).

c. Food safety:

i. Background:

The safety and wholesomeness of food has always been important for humankind. Hunter-gatherer

populations have consumed wild meat for millennia. In the past decades, wild meat consumption has

soared worldwide, resulting from the growing rural and urban locations demand for meat with high

protein content, vitamins, minerals, lipids and savory sensation (Zakpaa, Imbeah and Mak-Mensah,

2009). Social, economic and cultural factors including subsistence, taste preference, medicinal and luxury

food drive this increased demand.

The world is facing an unprecedented volume of wild meat trade, which moves locally, regionally and

across large international distances due to rapid advance in transportation, coupled with increased human

migrations around the globe (conflicts, foreign workers) (Travis, Watson and Tauer, 2011) and tourism.

This has supported the creation of new pathways to supply wild meat, legally or illegally.

These changes mean that related wild meat safety hazards, which may have previously been confined

to relatively small areas, can now disseminate easily across countries and continents. The need to assess

and mitigate such hazards is of paramount importance. What is the nature of the food-borne risk through

wild meat? How important is it? How can it be managed?

ii. Science-based facts:

This chapter is a review of possible hazards that may be associated with wild meat.

Wild meat safety is, to date, poorly documented and consumption is intimately linked to specific

regions, peoples and cultures; and so are the entailed-risk and its perception.

Inspired by Lecocq’s work (1997) distinguishing the production, slaughtering and marketing

processes, the review of potential food-borne hazards may be associated with the following steps of the

wild meat commodity chain: production, slaughtering, handling, processing, marketing, cooking and

finally, consumption. This review is neither intended nor can it be a risk assessment, as description of risk

expressed qualitatively and associated with the hazards examined, both microbiological and chemical.

38

The microbiological hazard:

Production (wildlife management); slaughtering (hunting) and handling (butchering and dressing):

These steps have been highlighted in the preceding chapter; we will only bring some complementary

information (related to food-borne diseases, including blood-borne and air-borne concerns).

The presence of zoonotic pathogens in the tissues of wild animals may constitute a finite risk of

infection to humans. Most carcasses are never subjected to formal meat inspection, resulting in an

increased risk to consumers, as macroscopic lesions (parasitic cysts, tubercles and abscesses), which

would normally have been removed by partial or total condemnation of the carcass, may then enter the

human food chain. The potentially more dangerous, yet sporadic and rare infestations of wildlife are often

macroscopically unapparent and the presence of such pathogens may frequently not be suspected.

Evisceration, gutting, skinning, plucking or defeathering and butchering represent the contamination

interfaces where the zoonotic risk may occur. These practices vary according to the region, the peoples,

the species and their size. Small game (rodent, fowl) may simply be carried home to be butchered; large

game (antelope, deer) is quickly field-dressed by removing the viscera in the field; very large animals

(apes, moose) may be partially butchered in the field because of the difficulty of removing them intact

from their habitat.

Some zoonotic diseases have been identified during extensive surveys on game carcasses in South

Africa (Bengis and Veray, 1997) through serological tests including reported human cases. The pathogens

are from viral, bacterial, rickettsial, chlamydial or parasitic origin. Hunters and culling workers handling

carcasses are the greatest risk. Transmission can occur through blood contact (handling of an animal

carcass slaughtered in the viraemic phase for Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever; Ebola or HIV); orally

(intestinal form of anthrax in humans reported in Namibia following the ingestion of zebra meat); through

contact with faeces (echinococcosis) or through contact with raw hides (dermatomycoses). These diseases

should be taken into consideration when importing wild meat from endemically or epidemically infected

countries. Health hazards associated with the movement of wildlife products are infinitely less than those

associated with the movement of live animals (Bengis, 1997), but still, a few foreign animal diseases for

which a definite risk exists and for which prevention strategies are important are listed (Bengis, 1997;

Bengis et al., 2004). These include: viral diseases: foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever

(ASF), classical swine fever (CSF), arbovirus diseases of ungulates (Rift Valley fever, blue tongue);

bacterial diseases: anthrax, BTB and brucellosis; and macroparasitic diseases: echinococcosis,

hydatidosis, trichinellosis, ectoparasitoses.

39

Despite all of these potential food safety health risks, the main public health problem to be anticipated

appears to be carcass contamination by enteropathogenic bacteria or toxigenic bacteria, which may occur

if the abdominal viscera are accidentally damaged according to the hunting technique or during

evisceration. For instance, a gunshot can damage organs such as the liver, guts or lungs, favouring the

dissemination of microbial contaminants (Lecocq, 1997).

Processing (hanging and conservation techniques):

Traditional practices involve wild meat being processed and hung until “high”, i.e. approaching a

state of decomposition, which is intended to improve the quality (tenderness, flavour and texture) of the

meat rather than consuming it immediately. The term “gamey” refers to this usually desirable taste,

historically anchored in cultures worldwide (from Yakoutes of Siberia, Betis in Cameroun, to French

kings’ Court). This practice does not result in unwanted proliferation of noxious germs and presents no

risk for public health, while carcasses from domestic or farmed animals will, under similar circumstances,

deteriorate much more rapidly. In Europe, game is hung up to several days, in a cool, dry, and fly proof

environment. With recourse being made to modern facilities, such as keeping wild meat deep-frozen for

several weeks or months before consumption, which also has a tenderising effect, the traditional hanging

of carcasses to mature meat becoming less common (Lecocq, 1997). In Africa, where cooling equipment

is not widely available, local communities rely on natural fermentation to protect the meat and to give it

desirable characteristics (Nout, 1994). In Asia, the traditional rationale of wet markets is to purchase live

animals to ensure they are not spoiled.

Indeed, meat is a difficult animal product to be kept over long periods; it can spoil and become

unsuitable for human consumption in a matter of hours, particularly in hot unhygienic conditions. The

moisture in meat is what leads to its deterioration; preservation techniques rely on removing the water and

changing its acidity. A number of options are available: heating, smoking, salting and drying (UNHCR,

2005). Wild meat is particularly consumed as biltong or smoked meat. Biltong, originated in South Africa

but now used worldwide, consists in cutting fresh, lean meat into long thin strips and hanging it in a dry

hot airy place where dust and insects cannot spoil it, for five to seven days. As the meat dries it darkens

and becomes a fairly hard but nutritious product that can be stored for long periods of time. Strips of meat

can also be preserved very effectively by smoking them, suspending them in special containers that

produce wood-smoke from sawdust from selected trees (S. Zombou, personal communication, 2011). The

smoke works by partially drying the meat and sealing its surface from further oxygen penetration.

A study in selected urban markets in Ghana undertook a microbial characterization of fermented meat

products, among them: smoked fermented and fresh fermented wild meat (Zakpaa, Imbeah and Mak-

40

Mensah, 2009). The authors report that smoking at high temperatures contributed to the reduction in

microbial load since most bacteria are not able to withstand the high temperatures encountered in this

process. Fresh meat is sometimes contaminated with bacteria. The sources of these microbes in wild meat

could be inherent microflora in normal tissues of animals, air, environment, or contamination due to

unhygienic slaughtering, handling and processing conditions. In fermented wild meat (compared to other

meat samples), Staphylococcus spp. and Streptococcus spp. were found; this can be attributed to the fact

that in natural fermentation process, the production of lactic acid is low, a level which is not always

adequate to inhibit proliferation of food-borne pathogens.

Due to processing techniques, wild meat shelflife increases substantially and storage qualities are

excellent, and compatible with the storage and transport of agricultural produce (Brown, 2003). Thus, the

initial load of viable organisms would be expected to be reduced significantly, before wild meat is put out

at market.

Marketing (transportation to rural and urban markets/exportation, trade):

Most wild meat sold to traders is typically processed (dressed and smoked, dried or salted) in contrast

to wild meat that is consumed locally as fresh (in hunters camps or villages, which implies a different risk

exposure). Thus, wild meat can support increased transport times, either from rural areas to urban markets

or regional or international exportations. The demand is strong in urban areas where restaurants owners

offer a variety of game dishes, considered by consumers more tasty and nutritious. Wild meat also makes

it way to regional capitals (e.g. Abidjan, Kinshasa) and cosmopolitan European capitals (e.g. Paris,

London), where it is sold in residential areas with large African populations.

Northern countries have expressed concerns about the illegal import of wild meat from Central and

West Africa. An estimated 4,000 to 29,000 tonnes of illegal meat enter the United Kingdom (UK) each

year from non-EU countries. The UK Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food

provided a review of possible microbiological hazards that may be associated with such import (FSA,

2005). Only 1% of all seized meat was identified as wild meat. Compared to the domestic market in wild

meat in Central and West Africa, this amount represents only a very tiny fraction of the total turnover.

According to this report, the following agents can be reasonably excluded as posing a credible risk: within

bacteria: rickettsial, leptospires, Yersinia pestis, and Francisella tularensis; within viruses: Ebola,

Marburg, Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF), Hanta, retroviruses; within parasites: Ascaris

suum, toxocara.

41

Regarding non-foodborne hazards, possible risks in relation to anthrax (cutaneous form in food

handlers from exposure to spores in the wild meat), brucellosis (transmitted through cuts and abrasions in

the skin), Q fever (aerosolisation is needed which is unlikely) and monkeypox (very robust, there is

therefore the possibility of infection of food handlers if the carcass is contaminated; person-to-person

spread and a fatality rate of up to 10%) were identified as arising from handling wild meat in preparation

for cooking. Since wild meat is thoroughly cooked, of these, only monkeypox was considered to represent

a risk to public health above current levels albeit, at a very low. The natural host, the squirrel as well as

primates that may also be infected, could enter the UK from Central and West Africa as wild meat.

Despite conclusions of this report, concerns still exist. Very recently, potentially contaminated

chimpanzee meat was discovered for sale in a UK market; consumers there desired wild meat as special

meal for a ceremony (Purlain, 2011). Some airline passengers have reported blood contamination of their

suitcases during travel flights from Africa to Zurich (N. DeHaan, personal communication, 2011). Air

companies reacted to that complain with systematically enveloping luggage with plastic protection. A

need for further exploration has been expressed. The first systematic study of the scale and nature of wild

meat international trade from Africa to Europe has been recently proposed (Chaber et al., 2010). Around

five tonnes of wild meat are smuggled weekly in personal luggage through Charles de Gaulle airport,

France, not only for private consumption, but as part of a lucrative business involving high prices and a

wide range of species, many of which are CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) listed. Microbiological analysis on wild meat samples collected at two

French airports terminals have been undertaken. Bacteriology revealed no endogenous bacteria except

Listeria monocytogenes, L. grayii, Streptococcus spp. and Staphyloccoccus spp. Virology revealed no

poxviridae and unspeficic result for filoviridae were reported (Chaber, 2008).

Cooking and consuming:

Most of time, cooking wild meat in a traditional manner considerably decreases the risk for food-

borne pathogen infection. An African woman, living in Europe and consuming imported wild meat from

her country of origin, testifies: “the meat, which is usually smoked and may be up to one week old, is

washed in salted water and scrubbed, often with lemon juice. The meat is always chopped into small

pieces and boiled in a stew pot for at least one hour together with spices (curry powder, thyme, white

pepper, onions and garlic) until very tender. The vegetables are then added with further cooking

(tomatoes, chili pepper, palm oil and more onions). The length of time of cooking is at least 2 hours and

often much longer” (FSA, 2005).

42

In the UK, the risk of illness occurring as a result of cross-contamination from the raw wild meat to

other foods in the kitchen is considered much more likely and comparable to risks from cooking foods

obtained from retail outlets. Credible hazards include those common foodborne disease organisms such

as, within bacteria: salmonella, campylobacter, Verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC), Shigella,

TB, C.perfringens, and non-plague Yersinia species, Brucella; and within parasites: giardia,

cryptococcus, T saginata, T solium, echinococcus, toxoplasma.

Regarding viral diseases, the EBOV lipid envelope renders it relatively unstable in the environment.

Infection in persons whose sole contact is with meat procured by others has not been reported, if it occurs

at all, and there is no risk to eating cooked food. These observations come from remote African settings

where there is little or no cold storage (Bausch, 2011). A rare monkeypox outbreak of five human cases in

children was reported in Zaire, and has continued up to a fourth generation of human-to-human contacts;

fresh monkey meat was purchased, cooked and eaten by the whole family (Jezek et al.,1986).

Some cultural habits can enhance risk level. In southern Africa, where meat is traditionally eaten

undercooked (on the contrary to Sub-Saharan countries), zoonotic risk of tuberculosis does exist for the

consumer (Bengis and Veray, 1997). ). Anthrax still represents a persistent risk for public health; Bacillus

anthracis can be transmitted from wild herbivores and suids to human through consumption of meat from

infected carcasses; it has been recorded in at least 52 species including many antelope hunted for human

consumption (Hugh-Jones and De Vos, 2002).

Trichinellosis appears to be a re-emerging disease such as in Italy, with the demographic explosion of

wild boar and increased consumption (Rossi et al., 1992). In the arctic and subarctic areas of North

America, the disease is enzootic and wildlife is the main source of infection (hosts include bear, fox, wolf

and lynx). Although the incidence in the most populated regions has declined with improved meat

regulations, an outbreak was reported in 2000 within Saskatchewan communities, following consumption

of bear meat infected with Trichinella nativa (Schellenberg et al., 2003). Native American cultures

regularly consume fish and wild meat from bear, caribou, beaver, rabbit, and moose. The latter

herbivorous are unlikely sources of trichinellosis. Although guidelines for dry curing of pork possibly

contaminated with T. larvae are available, conditions required to kill sylvatic isolates, such as T. nativa,

are not clear. For prevention of T. spiralis, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency recommends that meat

be sufficiently cooked to obtain a uniform internal temperature of 77°C before being consumed.

Confirmed cases were more likely to have consumed dried meat, rather than boiled meat. The drying

process used (over an open fire for up to three days) does not generate enough internal heat to kill the

cysts; however, it is unclear how large the pieces of bear meat were and how long they had to be boiled to

43

make them safe for consumption. For prevention, boiling appears to be better than drying. This example

shows that processing steps are not always sufficient to reduce the microbiological risk to a low level, but

cooking can reduce the risk significantly.

Wild meat is also consumed for traditional, medicinal purposes. Regarding trichinellosis, illegal

poaching and killing of warthog and wild carnivores occurs at a low level but a real threat of parasite

transmission exists with the prescription of uncooked predator organs and products to patients or

traditional healers. Transmission of pathogens from animal preparations to the patient should be assessed.

Several organs and tissues including bones and bile can be a source of Salmonella infection causing

chronic diarrhea and endotoxic shock; the risk of zoonotic transmission of tuberculosis or rabies should

be seriously considered. Toxic or allergic reactions to animal products are also possible. A study

conducted in Brazil shows that most patients receiving animal products had a perception that none of the

remedies had adverse effects unless the dose and administration were inappropriate (Alves and Rosa,

2007). Food safety is not even considered.

To conclude, very few pathogens are sufficiently robust to survive the significant changes in

temperature, pH, moisture content and osmolarity which occur post mortem, or during preservation

processes such as smoking, drying and traditional cooking.

The chemical hazard:

Production:

Wild meat is unique regarding its non-extensive, non-human mode of production. As a process of

natural selection, it should be considered as a true free range and organic product, for which ante mortem

administration of potentially hazardous chemical agents (e.g. antibiotics) is by definition impossible.

However, direct negative impacts of chemical pollution on wildlife have been documented

(organochlorine toxicity in raptors, lead poisoning or avian saturnism in wildfowl, radioactivity in wild

boars). Toxic chemical accumulation at subclinical levels may cause immunosuppression that increases

host susceptibility to infectious diseases (Daszak, Cunningham and Hyatt, 2001) and contaminate the

food chain.

A wide range of organochlorides pesticides were used by farmers in Ghana because of their

effectiveness low cost and broad spectrum activity to control insect pests and diseases on cocoa crops.

These pesticides have been identified as a major class of environmental contaminant and were banned in

44

Ghana, based on reports on toxicity through direct contact or secondary exposure, and adverse harmful

effects to wildlife and humans (Entsie, 2002).

The levels of organochlorine pesticide residues in grasscutter tissues have been recently investigated

(Blankson-Arthur, 2011). Grasscutter is a very popular wild meat for both rural and urban populations in

Ghana, but its degree of contamination is largely unknown. Levels of organochlorine pesticide residues in

all samples analyzed (muscle, liver and kidney) were found below Codex Alimentarius standard. These

residues may originate form the ingestion of plants grown on contaminated soil.

Slaughtering:

Chemical contamination can derive from specific hunting techniques. Ghanaian hunters, in their quest

to generate higher incomes are now resorting to baiting game with highly potent chemical pesticides.

Used as baits, chemicals are smeared on leaves of crops serving as food sources for browsing animals.

The active ingredients tend to be retained in animal tissues and are passed on to consumers eating wild

meat. No one is safe from this unconventional method of hunting (Entsie, 2002).

Shotgun, a widely used modern hunting technique, can contaminate meat depending on the context of

small pellets contained in firing cartridges: lead, steel, tin or bismuth may all be present but best known is

lead toxicosis, particularly common in waterfowl (Lecocq, 1997).

Processing:

In Gabon, wild meat is preserved in formaldehyde, which can kill pathogens, but presents an obvious

concern in terms of consumption regardless of cooking methods (A. Constant, personal communication,

2011).

Marketing:

Chaber, in her investigation of the wild meat traffic, analysed Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

(PAHs) (e.g. benzoapyrene) load from wild meat samples collected at French airport customs. She

warned of the long-term consumption of carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic PAHs (Chaber, 2008).

iii. Discussion:

Wild meat is unique because of the mode of production, cultural-embedded and site-specific

practices, and the informal nature of its trade. Wild meat food safety should be seen in a unique

perspective. This makes an integrated approach to the production of wild meat “from stable to table” not

45

entirely appropriate. Even in Europe, the recognition of the need for specific rules for game meat was

recognized in the late 80s.

There is a need to be careful not to overstate risk. From Defra’s perspective (Department for

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK), the risk associated with wild meat is not perceived to be high,

due to robust processing and cooking methods. As most wild meat is destined for human consumption,

the risk of livestock contamination is low. However, the need to seek a high level of protection for

consumer health must be recognised (J.M Poirson, personal communication, 2011). Handling, storage and

processing can lead to risks of cross-contamination, dissemination of potentially unhealthy products and

danger of food poisoning. Moreover, through the international scale of wild meat trade, the economic

consequences of infected material getting into the human food chain could be devastating both socially

and economically, if this were to result in a major disease outbreak.

Two levels of action for anticipation, prevention and timely response are needed:

Field level: public health education around wild meat:

Hunting techniques should be documented since the way animals are killed may influence the risk

encountered. Greater responsibility for identifying possible health hazard could be vested in the hunter, to

report any unusual conditions observed during hunting, and when appropriate, during evisceration and

bleeding. As an example, most wild swine meat is consumed locally by hunters and not inspected by

health authorities. Appropriate education should be dedicated to hunters and persons who prepare the

meat (distribution of leaflets informing the hunters) including best practices, such as refraining from

utilizing any organ which appears abnormal, hygiene associated with trimming and washing potentially

contaminated bullet-wound channels, and thorough cooking of meat to reduce the risk of zoonotic

pathogen transfer. Field training, with basic skills, equipment and knowledge could be relevant for

capacity building in handling, processing and cooking hygiene, reducing greatly, the initial risk of both

zoonoses and cross contamination. Education should focus on local communities and cultural groups

living abroad.

The rules concerning veterinary control and inspection should be realistic and practical. Indeed, the

carcasses of wild animals are generally not subjected to a formal inspection prior to sale to the consumer,

mainly because most wild animals are legally classified as ownerless; hunting takes place in remote areas

with limited infrastructure (lack of refrigeration, no proper abattoir). In many developing countries,

veterinary legislation is inadequate to address these challenges and veterinary services should be

strengthened. The development of a formal game farming and ranching industry and subsequent statutory

46

requirements represents a start. Legislation should also contain precise but realistic guidelines and rules

for hygiene standards and design of larders, collection centres and processing houses for wild meat, in

villages and urban areas (Gibbs, 1997)). Using existing manuals as a starting point will enable rapid

progress, but there is a need to adapt existing knowledge on the pathogens to the wild meat situation, as

shown by the example of trichinellosis cases in Canada: T. spiralis versus T. nativa.

International level: controlling illegal wild meat imports:

European countries and North America are primarily concerned with illegal imports of wild meat at

their borders. In the UK, the current legislative controls, if properly enforced, prohibit the importation of

all products of animal origin from countries outside the European Union (EU), including wild meat,

which should provide appropriate protection; however, reality is different. At the point of export,

corruption needs to be addressed. Conducting accurate risk assessments and monitoring import volumes

are required to understand the geographic spread and impacts. Using wild meat seizure data alone does

not provide the full picture as it is subject to other factors such as the strength of deterrents and the level

of detection efforts. This is a potential area for further research to improve sampling methodologies for

realistically estimating total import volumes. When an animal product is seized, it is not easily identified.

Through the development of robust methods for identifying imported wild meat using genetics or

osteology, and pathogens via screening, a clearer understanding of what is being imported will emerge

and will facilitate improved and targeted deterrent strategies. Finally, conclusions reached in studies to

date may not be appropriate to other locations. Generalisation that there is low risk of food-borne diseases

transmission from studies in the UK may not be applicable to France.

Data on wild meat and food safety are scarce. This could be associated with the informal nature of the

trade. Indeed, it is difficult to let the trade continue illegally without law enforcement, and at the same

time, ask for official statistics, veterinary inspections and proper risk assessments (P. Otto, personal

communication, 2011). The issue is also very sensitive; publications targeting cultural traditions of

particular ethnic communities have slowed down due to fear of stigmatisation. Whether the public health

issues related to the international wild meat trade can ever be justified to supply a demand from the

foreign communities is an accurate debate (Fevre et al., 2006). The ongoing reflection on possible

legalisation for wild meat trading should consider the need to evaluate and mitigate food safety hazards.

47

d. Biodiversity conservation:

i. Background:

Hunting for wild meat is the most significant immediate threat to wildlife in many African and Asian

countries (Bennett et al., 2007), and to conservation of biological diversity in the tropics (Robinson and

Bennett, 1999). Historically, overexploitation was almost certainly responsible for the extinction of many

species (giant lemurs of Madagascar, moas of New Zealand, megaherbivores of North and South

America). Hunting is pointed out as an ultimate cause of extinction (Rao and McGowan, 2002).

Wildlife resources have already disappeared across large parts of tropical Asia and West Africa, and

this will clearly occur in Central Africa and Amazonia if present trends continue. This depletion of animal

species within forest ecosystems is known as “empty forest syndrom”.

Intact forest wildlife provides products such as wild meat, ecosystem services, and a basis for

commercial and recreational activities. On a global scale, the goods and services provided by forest and

forest wildlife are worth billions of dollars; added to this, their cultural and spiritual value (Kaeslin and

Williamson, 2010). For these reasons, biodiversity conservation is of increasing ethical concern and

economic interest (Costanza et al., 1997).

The IUCN defines three types of threats to protected areas (PAs): 1. the removal of an individual

element without alteration of the overall vegetation structure (animal species hunted for wild meat for

instance); 2. the overall impoverishment of the ecology (persistent poaching); 3. major degradation

(extractive operations, road building) (IUCN, 1999). Humans have been hunting sustainably in tropical

forests for millennia, but contemporary human behavior entails combinations of these three types of

threats, exceeding natural systems resilience. Such behaviors are driven by poverty, population growth,

increasing exploitation for booming commercial markets, increasing accessibility, lack of defined user

rights, political instability and weak institutions.

ii. Science-based facts:

The empirical evidence:

Multiple sustainability assessments focusing on tropical forest wildlife have warned about the scale of

hunting extraction rates. Annually, total extraction of wild meat in the Congo basin is estimated at 4,5

million tons (Fa, Peres and Meeuwig, 2003); 23 500 tonnes in the single Malaysian state of Sarawak

48

(Bennett, Nyaoi and Sompud, 2000) and between 67 000 and 164 000 tonnes in the Brazilian Amazon

(Robinson and Redford, 1991).

Inferences about sustainability have been made through field observations, including the following

indicators: the distance travelled by hunters (an increase assumed to represent depletion in areas nearer to

the markets); mean body mass (a reduction suggests loss of larger, more vulnerable species); changes in

the proportion of trade represented by less vulnerable taxonomic groups (such as the primate/rodent

ratio); and trade volumes (a reduction suggests unmet demand such as increases in price).

Such evidence is site-specific. For instance, West Africa is far more depleted in species than Central

Africa.

On the one hand, a study examining wildlife decline in Ivory Coast using game market surveys shows

tremendous pressure on both vulnerable and robust species alike (Bassett, 2005). A decline in animals

marketed, flat monthly sales, the disappearance of formerly common species, a declining return to

hunting efforts, oral historical evidence of the elimination of large mammals and a consensus view among

hunters and non-hunters alike that wildlife populations have significantly declined. A recurring theme in

hunters’ explanations relates to changes in animal habitats (increasing number of cattle, expansion in

farmland, use of pesticides). The growing importance of small game (hare, giant rat, common genet)

suggests that larger size mammals have become increasingly rare, which is confirmed by senior hunters:

“you can hunt for one or two days and do not see an animal” (Bassett, 2005). Some hunters are linking the

disappearance of wildlife to troubled relations with the spiritual world.

On the other hand, a sixteen-months study of rural households in DRC points out two lines of

circumstantial evidence suggesting that current levels of extraction are sustainable: wild meat is harvested

in close proximity to the village; local agricultural communities are not associated with low animal

abundance (De Merode, Homewood and Cowlishaw, 2004).

A six-year study on the wild meat supply and consumption in a logging concession in Congo reports

that both the proportional offtake and the consumption of duikers, pigs and monkeys remain high and that

small species represent a small proportion of all wild meat, suggesting wildlife populations might be able

to support current levels. Nevertheless, the high diversity of wild meat species in markets is alarming

because it may indicate the initial phase of wildlife depletion (Poulsen et al., 2009).

In Central Gabon, a two-year study reports that the five most frequently caught species are: brush-

tailed porcupines, blue duikers, bay duikers, tree or long-tailed pangolins and the giant pouched rat. The

majority of the species hunted in villages are small, fast breeding and nonendangered (Coad et al., 2010).

49

Findings from more urban environments indicate that the relative proportions change towards a reduction

in ungulates and an increase in rodents taken, reflecting depletion of larger sized animals and a greater

dependence on smaller ones such as cane rats that are able to sustain their numbers in spite of hunting.

Alternatively, as it is easier to transport smaller species, these may be what is available further from

hunting sites, in urban centers.

This first empirical evidence shows that a differential approach is needed and that inferences should

be interpreted with caution. Can we rely on such indicators? Do the information on urban markets reflect

faithfully the information in rural areas? Clearly, the underlying circumstances determining extraction are

far too complex to generalize.

A complex medley of factors underlies overexploitation:

Demographic factors:

High local populations densities in remote forest areas are generally the result of internal population

increase, sedentarism and immigration (Nasi et al., 2008). It is very difficult to estimate how many people

can obtain their daily protein needs from forest. This is further complicated by the strong urban demand.

Robinson and Bennett (1999) calculated that a tropical forest could sustainably support the protein needs

of approximately one person/km2 if wild meat is the sole source of protein. The number of people per

square kilometre of remaining forest is on average 46 in Latin America, 99 in West and Central Africa,

and 522 in South and Southeast Asia. Not everyone eats wild meat for protein but ultimately, wildlife is

being extracted from the forest at more than six times the sustainable rate.

Technological factors:

The loss of both traditional hunting territories (historical rights to a certain portion of forest) and

methods (such as hunting zone rotations) allows open access to the resource and concentration of hunting.

Hunting used to occur only along hunting trails. Van Vliet et al. (2010) report from remote areas in

Gabon that at a distance less than ten kilometres from the village, each family uses its own trails, whereas

at a distance equal or superior to ten kilometres, all trails and camps are used by all hunters. Generally, in

a village, the number of hunters is fixed and all adult males hunt. Hunting practices are now often

determined by anthropogenic landscape factors (presence of logging camps and roads). In some areas,

hunting is undertaken by non-discriminatory snares (cable and steel wire snares), the catch is then not

hunter-driven, but affected primarily by the hunting method (Fa, Ryan and Bell, 2005). In other areas,

50

affected by political instability and conflict, increased availability of modern arms such as guns increase

the fatal injury rates and make it easier the kill of large species (Jambiya, Milledge and Mtango, 2007).

Cultural factors:

They are very strong in maintaining both a rural and urban demand for wild meat; hunting and eating

wild meat is part of a cultural heritage, even if food habits may evolve to adapt to changing economic

realities (Nasi et al., 2008).

Economic factors:

Over the past decades, the intensity and spatial extent of the wild meat trade has increased

substantially; the commercialization of wild meat is prevalent. The situation is getting worse as tropical

forests continue to be cleared. Between 1960 and 1990, Asia lost 33% of its forests, and Latin America

and Africa each lost about 18% of theirs. Extractive companies directly destroy critical habitat, disturb

movement patterns and alter behaviour of wildlife while indirectly facilitating hunting in remote areas

often not governed by village traditions. Building roads and establishing camps facilitates transportation

for hunters, contributes to habitat fragmentation, establishes market trade, and increases local demand for

wild meat-based proteins (Poulsen et al., 2009). As an example, in Yasuni National Park, Ecuador, oil

extraction has been facilitated by road construction, and a nearby wild market was developed, offering an

opportunity for local indigenous people to trade wildlife (pacas, white-lipped peccaries, collared peccaries

and woolly monkeys) with commercial dealers, for resale to restaurants. Free transport provided by the

company within the park indirectly facilitated the hunting and trading activities (Suarez et al., 2009).

Globalization of the economy makes people move long distances for work. Thai agricultural workers are

brought to Israel from poor rural communities in Thailand, where they are used to hunting wild and even

domesticated animals to supplement their meagre incomes (S. Khomenko, personal communication,

2011). Illegal game hunting in Israel endangers animals; some of these species, such as rabbits and hares,

partridges and foxes, once common even near developed areas, are now rarely seen. Egypt and Lebanon

experience an equivalent phenomenon (Picow, 2011). Finally, economic crisis has forced many

unemployed urban inhabitants back to the countryside as well as forced many rural farmers to seek

alternative sources of income and many have become part-time or full-time hunters (Nasi et al., 2008).

Institutional and governance factors:

Hunting rules and regulations exist almost everywhere but they are rarely enforced. For example, the

legislative fine for hunting protected species in Ghana is 10,000 cedis (1,14 $US). Bioeconomic

51

simulations suggest that fines of at least 100,000 cedis coupled with target law enforcement would likely

have the most wide-ranging effects (Damania, Milner-Gulland and Crookes, 2005). The State is the

owner of the resource and issues rules and regulation to manage it but the State is unable to enforce its

decisions; there is a clear ownership and management problem.

At the end, game depletion should be conceptualized as the outcome of interacting ecological,

sociocultural, economic and political processes that produce hunting pressure and habitat change.

Long-term ecological impacts:

On wildlife:

In Central Africa, an estimated 579 million forest mammals are consumed annually and 60% of the

most common game species in the Congo Basin are hunted unsustainably (Fa, Peres and Meeuwig, 2003).

Local extirpation of hunted species is widespread. The most commonly hunted and traded species are

site-specific. A review and analysis of patterns and between-site variation in hunter-kill profiles of

mammals in tropical moist forests in West and central Africa has been completed through a meta-analysis

of published data from thirty-six sites in seven countries (Fa, Ryan and Bell, 2005). Larger ungulates and

larger carnivores species were affected less than smaller species, but larger rodents and medium-sized

primates were affected more. Abundance rather than body mass was the main predictor of harvest level.

At sites where larger species have been severely depleted, hunters extract fewer of the preferred larger

bay and blue duikers and more of the smaller species such as the giant pouched rats or the cane rats. In

most continental sites in Africa, rodents only become important prey items in disturbed areas. The spatial

harvest theory developed by McCullough (1996) advocates division of areas under management into

hunted and non-hunted (protected) zones (“sinks” and “sources”), with animals moving without

restriction between the two. If hunter presence of a site is not too intense, adjacent large tracts of

undisturbed forest can buffer and replenish hunted areas, restocking game populations and therefore

contributing to the sustainability of hunting in an area. Similar approaches are already in operation in

marine fisheries, involving the “no-take areas” concept, where protected zones are defined in relation to

future harvest needs and not independently of them (Milner-Gulland, 2002). However, heavy hunter

presence, deforestation and habitat fragmentation of many areas disrupts the source-sink dynamics

(Bodmer and Puertas, 2000).

Different species situations have to be considered. Some taxa can withstand a high level of hunting

pressure (bushpig, bushbuck, duikers, rodents) as they are generally not threaten by population decreases

52

whereas other taxa are more to consumptive uses (medium-sized antelopes, manatee, great apes) and are

matter for concern due to smaller and decreasing populations (Chardonnet, 2002).

On ecosystems:

Species loss results in the disruption of ecological and evolutionary processes as a result of changes in

species composition and reduction of biological biodiversity. Hunters preferentially select abundant large

animals. These keystone species are important to habitat landscapers, playing a key role in the structure

and function of the forest ecosystem. Top predators (large cats, raptors, crocodiles) make resources

(carrion, safe breeding sites) available to that would otherwise be scarce or they initiate a trophic cascade

(Terborgh, 2010). Local extinction of these predators can trigger large changes in prey populations.

Elephants and other mega-herbivores can play a major role in modifying vegetation structure and

composition through their feeding habits and movements in the forest, killing a large number of small

trees. Ungulates such as wild pigs and duikers are among the most active seed dispersers; a significant

change in their population densities associated with loss of top predators would have a major effect on

seedling survival and forest regeneration.

Beyond species loss, hunting techniques can have indirect effects on ecosystems. In Benin, where

grasscutter is particularly targeted, protected savannah habitats are threatened by bushfires organized

during game catching operations (Jori, Mensah and Adjanohoun, 1995).

On humans:

People are an integral part of ecosystems. Particularly, unsustainable extraction has direct negative

impact on health and well being of forest dependent communities, posing a serious threat to their

livelihood opportunities, and cultural and spiritual identity. This growing threat to biodiversity means

there is an increased need for effective monitoring.

Developing reliable sustainability assessments:

Assessing sustainability is challenging. Results are usually derived from snapshot sustainability

indices in which critical parameters are often taken from the literature. Professional monitoring generally

meets the requirement for scientific rigor, but it is often expensive, logistically, technically, and

analytically demanding. Simple, more informative tools assessing sustainability are needed and

alternatives involving local people are emerging.

Promising methods include an approach in which the species composition (prey profile) of harvested

offtake is examined. Although Catch per unit effort (CPUE) is a widely used index of prey abundance and

53

represents an alternative method to determine harvest sustainability. Results obtained from working with

hunters reporting CPUE in Equatorial Guinea suggest that locally based monitoring can offer an accurate,

cost-effective, and sufficiently powerful method to monitor the status of natural resources, if the lack of

national and local capacity for monitoring and management is addressed. Such monitoring may be more

sustainable over time, allow greater spatial coverage and quicker management decisions, leading to

increased compliance, and helping encourage attitude shifts toward more environmentally sustainable

practices (Rist et al., 2009). These results were confirmed through a comparative study, promoting simple

village-based offtake surveys and hunter interviews (Kümpel et al., 2010a),

Although spatial heterogeneity in hunting effort and prey populations at the landscape level play key

roles in the sustainability of hunted populations, the role of small-scale heterogeneity within a village

hunting territory remained understudied. Van Vliet and Nasi (2008) built a spatially explicit multiagent

model to capture the dynamics of a system in which hunters and prey interact within a village hunting

territory, in Gabon. The impact of hunting on prey populations depended on the spatial heterogeneity of

hunting and prey distribution at small scales within a hunting area. Within a village territory, the existence

of areas hunted throughout the year, areas hunted only during certain seasons, and unhunted areas

contributed to the sustainability of the system. Prey abundance and offtake per hunter were particularly

sensitive to the frequency and length of hunting sessions and to the number of hunters sharing an area.

Some biological parameters of the prey species, such as dispersal rate and territory size, determined their

spatial distribution in a hunting area, which in turn, influenced the sustainability of hunting. Detailed

knowledge of species ecology and behavior, and of hunting practices are crucial to understanding the

distribution of potential sinks and sources in space and time.

Many researchers have used urban wild meat market surveys as indicators of hunting volumes and

composition. Recently, Allebone-Webb et al. (2011) explicitly evaluated the biases inherent in market

data as a representation of village-level hunting off- take, showing that such data do not represent well the

species composition of animals taken from the forest. They used data from urban markets and villages

that supply these markets to examine changes in the volume and composition of traded wild meat between

the village and the market (trade filters) in Equatorial Guinea. Their results suggests that the composition

of wild meat offtake in an area may be driven more by urban demand than the geographic characteristics

of that area. This will be of use in the interpretation of wild meat market data elsewhere and provides a

template for future studies addressing the trade filters that exist between forests and markets. In the longer

term, this type of monitoring may lead to the development of valid market-based indicators of the

sustainability of the wild meat trade. Relying on sustainability assessments is important in developing

wildlife resource management solutions.

54

Finding solutions to reduce pressure on wildlife:

Two broad approaches have been trying to reduce pressure on wildlife: 1. Increasing the supply of

wildlife and 2. Reducing the demand, either by restricting the supply or by educating consumers about

other options (Wilkie and Godoy, 2001). Some suggest that the immediate priority for a sustainable use of

wild meat is a massive investment in law enforcement in PAs. Fines and enforcement, when properly

implemented, have been shown to work in some situations (Walsh, Abernethy and Bermejo, 2003). A

strong correlation between the level of funding for antipoaching and the trends in abundance of African

buffalo, elephants and black rhinoceroses in the Serengeti National Park has been demonstrated (Hilborn,

Arcese and Borner, 2006). However, the political will to create strong wildlife management regulations,

the ability to establish proper penalties for violations, the infrastructure to enforce laws, and the

motivation to enforce them vary widely among and within countries. The long-term prospects of wildlife

within PAs are poor without the support of communities. Helping local communities to understand good

hunting management practices can accomplish far more than top down regulation (Karesh and Noble,

2009). Community-based resource management promotes the value of the resource as an incentive for all

community members to actively manage it. The achievement of such strategies remains questionable,

particularly when the immediate benefits from illegal or unregulated hunting of wildlife can be

considerable (Campbell, Nelson and Loibooki, 2001). The combination of the distinctive features of

wildlife as a common resource (low ownership, mobility of the resource, non-recognition of user rights,

criminalisation of use, difficulty of monitoring the resource, low barriers to entry in the exploitation of the

resource) considerably lowers the incentives for sustainable management.

Growth in the extent of secondary forests globally has led some authors to herald their potential as

hunting grounds. Tropical secondary forests could be four times more productive than primary forests.

Consequently, hunting in these areas could be rewarding for both forest dwellers that often live near

successional mosaics and vulnerable primary forests species (that may be subjected to less persecution if

hunters can obtain wild meat from secondary habitats) (Robinson and Bennett, 2004). Wildlife population

densities in secondary forests are two to three-fold greater for disturbance-tolerant species (such as

capuchins, agoutis, red brocket deer, small tinamous) who have broad diets and able to exploit secondary

forest food resources such as insects, browse and seeds, but they are of low preference for hunters.

Hunting techniques, whether diurnal or nocturnal, change between habitats, and it can be harder to detect

smaller animals in more closed, secondary forest habitats.

Despite their potential, the value of secondary forests for wildlife conservation and rural people

remains unclear. Parry, Barlow and Peres (2009) findings suggest that existing Neotropical secondary

55

forests will not provide a sufficient supply of wild meat to enable sustainable subsistence hunting, even at

low population density. An average Amazonian smallholder would require more than 3,1 km2 of

secondary regrowth to ensure a sustainable harvest of forest vertebrates. Secondary forests can

sustainably provide only 2% of the required protein intake of Amazonian smallholders and are unlikely to

be sufficient for sustainable hunting in other tropical forest regions. The potential importance of

secondary forests as havens for biodiversity conservation and protein source for the rural poor can be

further questioned: deforestation continues regardless of declining rural populations. Abandoned land

may be left to regenerate but this is unlikely due to rapid expansion of industrial soy production in South

America, and oil palm in Southeast Asia. In Africa, with the increasing rural population, land

regeneration also seems unlikely, reducing the chances for forests to recover.

iii. Discussion:

The concept of sustainable development, promoted early by the Brundtland report (WCED, 1987),

implies a sustainable utilization of renewable natural resources. More recently, it has been proposed that

“a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and maintain or enhance its

capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource” (DFID,

2000). Global demographics challenges this concept. Indeed, it seems that a strong urban demand for wild

meat has led to the local extinction of animals with low reproductive rates, making resource-dependent

livelihoods “unsustainable”.

The long-term persistence of the wild meat trade, documented in Africa over several centuries,

suggests that the trade can be sustainable in a certain way. Vulnerable taxa (slow reproducers) have been

depleted heavily in the past, so that only robust taxa (fast reproducers), such as rodents, small antelopes,

flying squirrels and the bush-tailed porcupine are now traded and comprise the majority of animals in the

wild meat trade. The latter can sustain heavy exploitation and can be supplied from a predominantly

agricultural landscapes around cities (Cowlishaw, Mendelson and Rowcliffe, 2005).

This evidence of a “post-depletion sustainability” has two important policy implications: firstly,

scarce conservation funds should be allocated towards protecting vulnerable species that are on the brink

of local extinction; secondly, the wild meat trade should focus on robust species while conserving

vulnerable ones. At the end, hunters are not the ones making the choice to switch from larger to smaller

prey, but instead, they focus on smaller prey when these are the only ones remaining after a certain level

of hunting has occurred in a site.

56

We should however be careful because the decline from healthy faunal populations to faunal

depletion can occur suddenly (J. Jorgensen, personal communication, 2011). Moreover, evidence for

depletion suggest that increasing access to hunting may only put more pressure on a food resource, as was

the case with the Nile perch fishery in Lake Victoria, where unrestricted commercial trade has contributed

to local food insecurity by reducing local fish availability (Geheb et al., 2008). Well-documented cases of

overfishing leading to ecological extinction and collapse of coastal ecosystems provide stunning examples

of mismanagement of a natural resource that sustained large human populations for several millennia

(Jackson et al., 2001).

Hunting could still be a beneficial activity for an ecosystem, if it is sustainable. As an example, an

unusual combination of two major conservation threats, invasive species and wild meat hunting, has had a

positive outcome for wildlife conservation in the Brazilian Pantanal. Feral pigs, the main hunting target in

this area, are effectively acting as a replacement species for hunting of native wildlife because the pigs

provide a constant, culturally acceptable, readily available and free source of meat and oil to remote

ranches (Desbiez et al., 2011). Wildlife hunting represents some ecological advantages compared to

livestock. In a given region, hunting may be a strong incentive for maintaining the natural habitat rather

than transforming it for farming or husbandry. In this case, the hunted game plays the role of an umbrella

for biodiversity (Chardonnet, 2002).

According to this review, there are many more questions around wild meat, livelihoods, and

sustainability than there are answers. The state of knowledge reflects the complexity of this global issue,

through its concomitant implications on food security (wild meat is an important component of human

diets, a source of income and the only available food during critical periods), health (there is a risk of

zoonoses emergence, transmission and spread as well as a risk a food poisoning through microbial and

chemical contamination), and wildlife conservation (the increasing demand for wild meat renders

harvesting unsustainable and put endangered species to the brink of extinction). Such a complexity is

further enhanced by the fact that these dimensions are embedded in a sociocultural context that must be

taken into consideration. Capturing the ongoing trends, their antagonisms and synergies within each

dimension as well as their inner complexity is a prerequisite in the global understanding of the wild meat

issue. FAO has recognized the individual relevance of each dimension5. The Forestry Department has

produced literature on wild meat as a non timber forest product (NTFP) to be sustainably managed, the

Nutrition Division acknowledges that wild meat is an important part of human diets and a source of

5 Annex 1 - Extracts from the reports of FAO Regional Conference for Africa.

57

income for the rural poor. Concerns are also expressed about impacts of wild meat on population health,

but the interconnections between the dimensions have been poorly studied. A good strategy to address

these concerns is to consider the four dimensions together to find sustainable solutions from all angles.

2. Wild meat, livelihoods, and sustainability: transversal issues across

dimensions and disciplines:

To date, proposed solutions towards a more sustainable use of wild meat have been ineffective. This

may be because the four dimensions have been studied and managed separately. Conservationists have

dominated research for a long time, advocating their own solutions around the ecological value of

wildlife. The economic and nutritional values of wild meat have been widely ignored or underrated by the

international community; this situation has changed somewhat. Social changes have shaped these

practices. A second step of our work was to highlight the links between these dimensions and to place

them in the scope of social sciences. Working transversally across FAO Departments and Divisions, and

seeking inputs from a wide range of people experiences helped to identify the complex interactions

between these dimensions, and to point out disciplines essential to their understanding. Attending internal

conferences and workshops dealing with transversal issues as well as subscribing and participating to

interdepartmental initiatives was also inspiring to find ways to address the wild meat issue6.

a. Where do the four dimensions meet?

Interpreting the results of existing studies in terms of relevance for food security, public health and

conservation combined is a challenge. In this section, we take some examples to specifically point out

how these dimensions are intimately linked.

6 FAO and Bioversity International “Cross – cutting initiative on Biodiversity for food and nutrition”; “Biodiversity and

sustainable diets” technical discussions (http://www.fao.org/infoods/biodiversity/index_en.stm); FAO “Food for the Cities

multidisciplinary initiative” (http://www.fao.org/fcit/en/).

58

i. Linkages between food security and conservation:

Many refugee-hosting countries in Africa are home to large and diverse populations of wildlife.

Tanzania, since 1993, has been host to one of the largest concentrations of refugees in the world, causing

significant forest degradation and coinciding with a dramatic increase in the scale and scope of wild meat

exploitation and species depletion. The combination of high human population concentrations, fluctuating

food supplies and locally abundant wildlife populations close to the camps led to flourishing wild meat

trade in and around refugee camps. Rwandan refugees, by tradition, kept cattle with beef forming part of

their normal food intake. In contrast, food provisions in the refugee camps generally fail to meet basic

refugee needs, in particular animal protein. The refugees naturally started to chase, snare and hunt and

wildlife and wild meat daily markets were established. This meat was less expensive than local beef;

more desirable and provided an opportunity to generate income (Jambiya, Milledge and Mtango, 2007).

There is a low recognition of the contribution of wild meat to refugees regarding food security and

indirectly health through its contribution to a more balanced diet. Ensuring food security while depleting

wildlife has been reported in other situations including logging camps and cities surroundings protected

areas.

ii. Linkages between food security and public health:

In 2007, EBOV re-emerged in DRC, causing 186 human deaths. Several epidemiological

investigations were conducted during this outbreak (Leroy et al., 2009). The local populations described a

massive annual fruit bat migration in which bats roosted in large numbers on tree branches; hunters would

shoot them on daily basis. Outside the migration period, relatively small numbers of bats are killed

individually with machetes, catapults, or by hand, often close to villages. Some hunters are specialized in

hunting bats; during the annual migrations, they supply their own villages, friends and families, as well as

the weekly market where freshly killed bats are sold. At that time, bats represent an important food

source, mainly for men, postmenopausal women, and children. Women of childbearing age are not

allowed to eat bats, but they often butcher, prepare, and cook them. Villages were literally inundated with

bats killed by shotgun, a method that makes the animals bleed from multiple wounds. No precautions

were taken during their manipulation, clearly resulting in thousands of people directly contacting blood-

covered bats. In the short term, it may be difficult or even impossible to halt human consumption of fruit

bats, which represents a readily available and abundant source of protein, especially as many games

species are protected or becoming rare.

59

iii. Linkages between public health and conservation:

When we think about mammal declines, we think about harvesting as a major threat to conservation.

But diseases are also prone to decimate populations. The decline of major apes (gorillas and common

chimpanzees) in western equatorial Africa is a major conservation crisis, which has been linked not only

to hunting but also to Ebola haemorrhagic fever (Walsh, Abernethy and Bermejo, 2003). Commercial

hunting is concentrated near transport routes whereas Ebola impact occurs in remote areas. Leroy

Rouquet, Formenty et al. (2004) reported a temporal and spatial overlap between human Ebola outbreaks

and increased mortality among large wild mammals in Gabon and Republic of Congo (Leroy,). The

outbreaks occur abruptly, exterminating exposed animal populations rapidly and locally. The duiker

populations may recover rapidly, owing to their rapid reproductive cycle whereas slow reproductive

cycles of the great apes may lead to their extinction.

Responding effectively to an Ebola epidemic will require further research on reservoir and host

dynamics. Just as captive primates have proved invaluable for research at the level of the organism, wild

populations provide the opportunity to study infectious disease phenomena at the population and

ecosystem levels; wild primates may serve as sentinels by signalling which pathogens pose a risk for

humans in the immediate area as well as in distant countries. Efforts to preserve endangered primates and

monitor disease emergence have some common objectives. Common work may provide the missing link

between laboratory studies and the well-recognized needs of early disease detection, identification, and

surveillance (Wolfe, Escalante and Karesh, 1998).

Conservationists’ observations on NHPs ecology and behaviour are valuable for disease intelligence.

For instance, Colobus monkey interactions with other animal species may give some clues on potential

candidate for EBOV reservoir (Formenty et al., 1999). Hunting behavior of wild chimpanzees is worth to

be studied (Boesch, 1989).

One of the major lessons from SARS is that the underlying root of newly EZDs may lie in the parallel

biodiversity crisis of massive species loss as a result of overexploitation of wild animals for meat and

food medicine (Bell, Roberton and Hunter, 2004). Current efforts to ban the sale and consumption of wild

meat in China in response to wild meat being the source of SARS-CoV should be fully supported by the

public health and biodiversity communities.

These examples testify to the clear overlap between the four dimensions considered in this

dissertation, offering a common ground to efficiently study them together. Another constraint is that wild

meat research has neglected social values and social changes. Specialists from various disciplines need to

60

sit around the same table to investigate some underlying factors that simultaneously compromise the

sustainability of using of wild meat. Additional aspects to consider include: human behaviors; economic

growth, trade and development; legal and governance issues, including corruption; insecure land tenure;

social drivers including gender; conflict and war.

b. The value of social sciences in addressing the issue:

Insufficient consideration has been given to social sciences7 while studying the dynamics of wild meat

use. And yet, their contribution is transversal to all the dimensions studied and complementary to other

disciplines mobilized so far (nutrition, public health, ecology, etc.). A plurality of fields could be

considered as threads in the understanding of the underlying mechanisms, some of them presented in this

section and illustrated with selected examples.

i. Anthropology:

While humans have hunted and consumed wild meat for millennia, behavior has not been static but

has changed over time, and in response to historical circumstances. An anthropologically study of wild

meat would discover not only what people do when they hunt; it would also follow the process to the

village, market, into homes to the kitchen, and onto the table (Wolfe et al., 2005a). What role do ethnicity

and gender play? Do traditional rules exist determining who gets which parts of a kill? Do certain animals

get consumed in the village, while other species are sent to the markets? If wild meat is sold, who gets the

money? Are there ritual components to hunting or any religious or spiritual meaning? Wolfe and his team

raise these questions. Understanding human hunting behavior means situating it in an economic context,

in particular, the role of markets. Markets are organized social institutions in which goods and services

are exchanged. They involve information flow between buyers and sellers, and the transportation of goods

and resources required to render services from suppliers to customers. The answers to these questions will

assist in preparing for future attempts to modify behaviors, if required.

There is a clear gender split. In Equatorial Guinea, commercial hunting and fishing are male-dominant

activities, while agriculture is carried out only by women (Kumpell et al., 2010b). In Central Gabon,

7 Social science is the field of scholarship that studies society. "Social science" is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to

a plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences usually exclusive of the administrative or managerial sciences. These may include: anthropology, archaeology, business administration, communication, criminology, economics, education, government, linguistics, international relations, political science, sociology and, in some contexts, geography, history, law, and psychology.

61

agricultural incomes are often shared between a husband and wife, whereas hunting income is mainly

retained by the hunter (Coad et al., 2010). Regardless of their use of hunting incomes, men are likely to

be making a vital contribution to household food security when the household consumes wild meat. The

absolute amount of a hunter’s spending on food decreases as his hunting offtake increases, possibly

because his provision to meat reduced the amount of money required for household food. Significant

gender differences in spending patterns are observed. Much of the male expenditure is on alcohol and

cigarettes, limiting the reinvestment of hunting incomes into household maintenance whereas women

spend the highest proportion of their money to improve livelihoods, nutrition and quality of life. A

significant proportion of the wild meat traders are women in Cameroon (Solly, 2004). Given the

importance of women’s income for family welfare, it is important to protect and promote the interests of

this category. Finally, while men are hunting and butchering, women are trading, processing and cooking.

The exposure to carcass and body fluids is thus different, as are the related risks for diseases transmission.

Humans are known to employ behavioral adaptations to avoid exposure to infections, yet the type of

protective strategies that hunters might employ and their effectiveness remain unknown. Little data exist

on local perceptions on risks associated with hunting and eating wild meat. Recent medical

anthropological research has begun to examine indigenous theories of infectious disease and the cultural

context within which they emerge. Investigations in Central African rural villages report that a high

proportion of individuals perceive a risk of disease infection with wild meat contact. Individuals who

perceived risk were significantly less likely to butcher than those who perceived no risk. However,

perception of risk was not associated with hunting and eating wild meat (activities that, compared with

butchering, involve less contact with raw blood and body fluids). This suggests that some individuals may

act on perceived risk to avoid higher risk activity (Le Breton et al., 2006). However, it is not know from

this study if the perceived risk reported by some butchers is a risk of disease as the authors assume. For

instance, touching blood can be risky because of diseases but also because of religious or cultural

practices. In Islam, it is considered haraam (unfit) to consume blood. In some circumstances, associating

a health risk with wild meat would not be likely to change butchering behavior. In some area of rural

Cameroun, local beliefs regarding killing, butchering and eating wild meat coexist with Christianity. In

the Banyangi, some hunted animals (pythons, leopards) must be brought before traditional councils and

then butchered. Risk is associated with punishment by the traditional society and animist beliefs, not

diseases (Monroe and Willcox, 2006). People in Central Africa often believe that illness has supernatural

rather than biological origins. If sensitivity to cultural factors associated with the control of chronic

infectious or parasitic disease has increased in the past decades, little attention has been given to those

associated with EIDs. For example, the urgent context of Ebola outbreaks often leads to the neglect of

62

local people’s feelings and knowledge. Some local beliefs amplify outbreaks (burial practices), but local

people have cultural practices in place that can be useful to control rapid epidemics. Acholi people in

Uganda designate epidemics (measles, smallpox, Ebola) as “gemo”. When an illness has been identified

and categorised as gemo, the family is advised to implement indigenous epidemic control measures (no

food from outsiders should be eaten; rotten or smoked meat may not been eaten, only eat fresh cattle

meat).

ii. Sociology:

If certain practices and perceptions are deeply anchored in the story of humanity, some changes are

more contemporary, but equally important to our broad understanding of practices related to wild meat.

In India, the popularity for wild meat is soaring, despite traditional vegetarianism and religious

taboos. Musk-deer jerky, rice garnished with boiled macaque, roasted porcupine and marbled cat curry

are just few of the innumerable locally consumed and relished delicacies concocted out of wild meat.

Industrialists, politicians and movie stars are particularly keen on these dishes on their dinner tables and

are prepared to pay any price for it (Ravindran, 2008). Despite the ban on hunting since 1991, rampant

corruption and poor law enforcement have made it possible for poachers to feast on some of India’s

endangered species. The compulsions that drive wild meat consumers are varied: rich hosts and their

banquet menu, prepared to pay high prices; celebrities for shikaar8; medicine that hakims

9 and vaids10

extract from them (lizard’s tail melted down and sold in little bottles as an aphrodisiac; the gall bladders

of sloth bears for rheumatism; rings fashioned out of the pangolin’s scales sold to ease labour pain).

iii. Political and economical history:

Understanding the political and economical history of countries from which the use of wild meat has

been reported unsustainable enables us to draw lessons from the past, and understand the historical roots

of the trade.

8 Shikaar denotes hunting for social valorisation.

9 Hakims denotes Muslim physicians.

10 Vaids denotes medical professionals in Indian history. See Glossary.

63

In Tanzania, small human populations were living as hunters and gatherers until villages developed in

the mid-1970s, which led to the resettlement of about 80% of Tanzania’s rural population, forming

permanent settlements. Villages brought people closer to social services, but also led to their alienation

from natural resources that had previously been part of their livelihoods, including hunting (Jambiya,

Milledge and Mtango, 2007). More generally, the settlement of nomadic forest dwellers has exposed

people to economic insecurity, social prejudice and denial of traditional rights.

In Ivory Coast in the 1990s, the numbers of farmers bearing arms increased in response to

unmitigated threats to food security associated with crop damage caused by transhumance cattle. New

threats to public security led to rampant crime. Former President Felix Houphouet Boigny encouraged

hunters to take an active role in security work. This period was also characterized by economic decline for

West African states with heavily indebted economies subject to significant commodity price swings for

primary exports (coffee, cotton, cocoa), along with imposed structural adjustments to programs,

worsening economic conditions. Hunting for subsistence and commercial gain offered an alternative and

supplementary source of income. Game depletion was then linked to the economic diversification

strategies of farmer hunters whose engagement with the wild meat trade was driven by declining rural

incomes and sanctioned by cultural institutions that valorised hunting (Bassett, 2005).

Postdating the 1997 collapse of President Mobutu’s rule, Zaire, a widespread harvest of chimpanzees

for wild meat and the sale of their orphans has been reported The expansion of artisanal-scale diamond

and gold mining industries, the lack of alternative employment, low benefits from the sale of agricultural

crops, all contributed to primary reasons to hunt according to interviews with hunters and villagers (Hicks

et al., 2010).

Most war zones act as wildlife population sinks through the proliferation of armaments and

uncontrolled poaching by refugees and combatants (Dudley et al., 2002). The greater availability of

firearms makes large mammals easier to hunt and sell, while human populations displaced by hostilities

are more dependent on consuming and trading natural resources. The formal collapse of state institutions

allowed actors in the government, military, and private sector to use violence to gain greater access to

economically valuable resources (United Nations, 2001). Unfortunately, these conditions are not

exceptional: in 2000, 18 countries in sub-Saharan Africa were either experiencing conflict or emerging

from them. By disrupting customary and local control measures, armed conflicts increased the use of wild

meat (Karesh and Noble, 2009). Relatively little is known about the efficacy of protected areas during

periods of armed conflict. De Merode at al. (2007) found unexpectedly, that poaching increase despite

strong park protection, and then decline under weak protection. Changes in the social institutions that

64

control the urban market, rather than anti-poaching patrols, are the crucial factor influencing the number

of hunters and illegal offtake in the park (De Merode et al., 2007). However, wild meat extraction does

decline as patrol effort increased during both periods, meaning that protected areas can provide

conservation services during armed conflict, but a substantial increase in protection effort is required to

compensate for increased poacher pressure. The traditional administration of the village chief, which

maintained a stable legal trade throughout conflict, was key, minimizing disruption to the village market

and hence maximised the revenues that were derived from market small taxes, some of which were

invested back to the community.

More recently, Madagascar is experiencing an upsurge in environnemental crime since its political

upheaval in 2009, with an increase of illegal harvesting of animals and precious hardwoods. Lemurs are

sold as a delicacy to luxury consumers. Political chaos and the withdrawal of foreign aid mean that these

practices are continuing almost unchecked. The country’s interim government has responded to the crisis

by firing several forestry officials, but more cohesive enforcement is needed (Barrett and Ratsimbazafy,

2009).

To conclude, under economic weakness and political instability, the informal economy can be highly

dynamic and may increase the attractiveness of certain areas to transnational crime. Rose refers to this

phenomenon as “social chaos” (Rose, 2000).

iv. Political sciences, economics, law, and international

relations:

Today, illegal wildlife trade for food and non-food purposes is recognized as a transnational crime,

which constitutes a challenge for even the most advanced industrial nations (McCusker, 2006). This

organised crime capitalises on the variability of laws (“legal uncertainty” or “grey zone in the law”),

enforcement capacities and level of governance among countries and regions.

The trade of wild meat is a complex web. At a local scale, although it is well established that wild

meat is an important component of the informal economy, our understanding of how the structure and

organization of this economy influence the harvest and sale is limited. The informal economy can be

extremely dynamic and we need to understand how its social and political structures affect the trade.

Using a commodity chain approach emphasizes relations in the trade and the broad spectrum of illegally

and socially mediated mechanisms that regulate it, such as law enforcement, hunting rights and client-

patron relationships (Raikes, Jensen and Ponte, 2000). De Merode and Cowlishaw (2006) used this

65

method to describe the socio-political structure of the wild meat trade in the informal economy in

northeastern DRC. During peacetime, protected species from the park rarely appear in the rural markets,

but they comprise more than half of all wild meat sales in the urban. The trade is controlled by a small

group of female wholesalers who are supported by military officers providing protection against fines and

extortions, supplying the automatic rifles used to hunt large species that generate greater profits. This

market structure limits the number of hunters and other actors in the commodity chain and in turn, the

volume of illegal offtake in the park because control over trade is implemented by military officers, and

wholesalers depend heavily on their network of patron-client relationships which require time to establish.

The traditional chiefs, who administer the village markets, discourage the use of automatic weapons.

During wartime, the sales of protected species (including elephant, buffalo and hippopotamus) in the

urban markets increases fivefold because the military officers flee, leaving behind an open-access system

that lead to a massive increase in the exploitation of protected species by a large number of low-ranking

soldiers with automatic guns. In contrast, the rural markets remain relatively stable because of continued

authority of the village chiefs. This reflects significant differences in rural and urban commodity chains.

Internationally, illegal wild meat trade is often intertwined with legal trade; species banned in

international trade may literally be hidden beneath legal species, with illegal wild meat being claimed on

importation documents as fish (Hays, 2007). Misleading certificates are produced from African veterinary

officers and wild meat is transported via false suitcases (Chaber, 2008). It appears that controls at some

continental airports are lax. Wild meat from Africa is smuggled into Europe and North America to satisfy

the demands of some African cultural groups, for which wild meat has a huge cultural significance.

Antelope, giraffe, elephant, bat, cane rat, chimpanzee meat may be eaten on holidays or for reputed

medicinal benefits. Those importing illegal wild meat groups are in general well informed about the laws

but their desire to have “a taste of home” is the priority. The meat volume being imported into different

countries may be related to the country of origin and/or the composition of the immigrated communities.

Many ethnic groups in Britain originate from ex-British colonies and in these countries, most of the

animals have been shot out already. This may account for the apparent lower levels of traffic in the UK

(UK Bushmeat Working group, 2011).

Illegal wildlife trade is considered the second largest black market after narcotics, evaluated at US$

20 billion per year, with 87% of countries having officially reported illegal trade in wildlife products

(Zimmerman, 2003). This trade is highly attractive to organized criminal rings for many reasons: it is a

profitable business as shown through the standard economic concepts of supply and demand for food,

gourmet foods, canned hunts; there is an ease and low risk for smugglers to bring species into the country

without significance fear of police retaliation; and finally, there is an ability to incorporate this type of

66

trade with trade in other types of contraband. The illicit profits have been reported as a major source of

funding for terrorist and militia groups, including Al-Qaïda (Fison, 2011). Another difficulty is that a high

proportion of today’s illegal trade in wildlife-derived products is conducted through the Internet (IFAW,

2008).

Important to note is that development money from the west plays an important yet complicated role in

wild meat harvesting. Extraction industries and truck roads in Africa are funded by donor agencies or

companies based in Europe, Asia or the Americas (Karesh and Noble, 2009), creating hunting

opportunities. Finally, massive settlement of Chinese and Korean workers in Africa, bringing with them

their cultural food demands, medicinal beliefs may have additional significant influence on the

sustainability of wild species on this continent due to string cultural practices, intercultural trade and

globalization.

v. Social and moral philosophy:

Another difficulty confronting the unsustainable use of wild meat are the adopted misconceptions

between the so-called “developing world” and the “developed one” leading to analytical biases. We found

different illustrations of such “inextricable” situations during our bibliographical review.

As a first example, a controversial ongoing battle against the use of wild meat has been initiated by

lobbying groups to prevent or restrict people in Africa from consuming the meat from wild animals.

These groups oppose the use of a renewable resource such as wildlife and recommend livestock as a

substitute, while at the same time, they do not oppose the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources

such as petrol. Beyond sovereignty of countries and people, the approach of these groups is to impose the

views on uninformed developed societies, and to suggest that indigenous traditional diets be substituted

with exotic foreign regimens (Chardonnet, 2002).

Another illustration is that Africans are seen to hunt for money, with the advent of modern firearms

and improved communications, turning subsistence hunting into anarchic exploitation of wildlife. This

view of financial greed as an overriding human value above honesty, community and compassion is a

perceptual framework that came to Africa with the people who imported the cash economy. “Developing

countries” are perceived by “developed countries” in terms of their potential for commercial development

but the other kind of development, social and organizational, is neglected (Rose, 2000).

African people’s values are thus hidden by the imported view of wildlife as an exploitable natural

resource. From early history, wildlife played a critical role in the emergence of earth’s most successful

67

mammalian species Homo sapiens. Exploitation of wild food through hunting was the main evolutionary

driver of upright, running humans and critical to nutritional health, early expansion and growth

(Chardonnet, 2002). Today, people from the developing world and the developed one tend to view nature

with different perspectives. To some, wildlife is a resource which has been managed sustainably for

millennia, a means to structure societies, and has non-tangible power (Müller and Ritz-Muller, 2000). In

the developed world, the growing population has been sustained through domestication of species for

food and industrialisation of agricultural systems without taking natural capital into account. Traditional

systems are often weakened by the emerging modern world, but modern systems are not necessarily

optimal, leading to disturbing trends, unprecedented loss of biodiversity and emergence of new diseases,

threatening life itself (Kock, 2003). People are becoming culturally, physically and mentally disassociated

from nature.

Finally, debate on wild meat has raised some delicate questions from an ethical point of view,

including whether “alleviating poverty (will) solve the bushmeat crisis” (Robinson and Bennett, 2002).

From a livelihood perspective, such a proposal would be seen as an inversion of priorities: “resolution of

the scourge of human poverty is surely a supreme value not a means to a subordinate end” (Brown, 2003).

Conservation is a tool for achieving poverty reduction with the sustainable use of natural resources being

a foundation of strategies for achieving poverty reduction and social justice.

To conclude, the social science elements of wild meat use is not merely an exercise. Most critical is

the recognition that the situations examined are changing very fast. Social change is the rule almost

everywhere while social stability is the exception. The state of knowledge on the use of wild meat from

Africa, Asia, and South America may only partially reflect the real situation. To the extent that our

previous interpretations are valid, we can now propose some implications of transversality – across

dimensions and disciplines - for specialised international organizations, such as FAO, when addressing

the wild meat issue. How can we best work across dimensions and disciplines?

68

3. Implications for FAO when addressing wild meat, livelihoods, and

sustainability:

a. Expanding internal dialogue:

i. Seeking cross-sectoral collaboration:

Identifying the existing resources:

FAO recognizes the need to broaden the wild meat picture from an ecological perspective to a socio-

economic, cultural, public health and ecological one. Shared concerns imply shared responses, which

need to be discussed and agreed upon between all stakeholders within the organization. We must step

back to identify all FAO Departments, Divisions, and Offices working in this technical area, and at which

level (regional or international); to understand their levels and fields of expertise on this specific issue; to

evaluate whom and what they represent; and, as stakeholders, what their stake is in the wild meat issue.

FAO has all the resources to address each dimension of the issue11. During the internship, we sought

interdepartmental input from the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department (Animal Production

and Health Division; Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division; Rural Infrastructure Division), the

Economic and Social Development Department (Statistics Division; Trade and Markets Division; Gender,

Equity and Rural Employment Division), the Forestry Department (Forest Assessment, Management and

Conservation Division), the Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, the Fisheries

Department (Fisheries and Aquaculture Resources Use and Conservation Division) and also from the

Legal Office and the Office of Communications. The regional offices from specific regions of interest

(Congo Basin for instance) were also contacted.

Building on the experience of other sectors:

One can expect from such collaboration to build on the experiences of other FAO sectors. Some gaps

in knowledge of one aspect of the issue may be filled by another technical unit. For example, wild meat,

fish, and insects are three ecologically different resources that are economically linked. Their

interdependence indicates a need for coordinated management (Little and Edwards, 2003). It is likely that

the management of the wild meat sector could learn a lot by using examples (both successes and failures)

11

Annex 3 - FAO Headquarter Organigramme.

69

from other renewable natural resource sectors.

The natural candidate could be the fishery sector because of the commonalities in the nature of the

resource (Bowen-Jones, Brown and Robinson 2002). These harvesting systems are both characterized by

the open-access extraction of multiple prey species, many vulnerable to overexploitation. Fisheries are

exploited at artisanal and industrial scales, and have an important national and international regulatory

dimension that spans both developing and developed countries. By contrast, the wild meat system is

artisanal and so far, poorly regulated. The use of rights-based management systems (e.g. ITQs) and

productivity monitoring tools based on catch data (and not on count data or on models based on dubious

or unproven assumptions); CPUE method is commonly used in fisheries management, to assess

sustainability (Hilborn and Walters, 2003)). This could offer some promise for wild meat management

(Inamdar, Brown and Cobb, 1999). Two of the most powerful tools for the control of trade in fisheries are

molecular monitoring of markets and restaurants and genetic tracking of products (Eaton et al., 2010;

Desalle and Amato, 2004). These tools should be widely used to track illegal trade of wild meat

internationally, as previously mentioned.

In addition to the Fisheries Department, the Forestry Department could offer some solutions or ideas

from the fuel wood sector. Studies of local markets for fuel wood in the Sahel show clearly that the

transfer of rights and sector management to local people could be at least as good for the environment as

when national governments are in charge and certainly much better in terms of improved local livelihoods

(Mahamane et al. 1995).

There is a clear imperative for future collaboration across FAO Departments and Divisions. We set up

an internal workshop on “Wild meat, Bushmeat, Livelihoods, and Sustainability: Implications for Food

Security, Zoonoses, Food Safety, and Biodiversity Conservation”, one of the goals was to share

knowledge and perspectives regarding this transversal issue and to identify synergies and opportunities

for further in-house collaboration. The agenda12 as the attendance list13 is a good reflection of the

necessity to work in a transversal and multidisciplinary way on this issue.

12

Annex 4 - FAO Wild Meat Workshop Agenda and Abstract, 26th of October 2011.

13 Annex 5 - FAO Wild Meat Workshop confirmed List of attendees, 26th of October 2011.

70

ii. Building a multidisciplinary working group:

A broad-based professional and personal team:

An interdepartmental FAO working group on the wild meat issue is needed to share the ongoing

activities, perspectives, and existing practical tools. Special attention should be given to the selection of a

few experts, according to their competences and values relative to the issue. The collaboration should be

broadbased from professional and personal viewpoints. Indeed, educational background and personal

experience affect our biases in relation to science and conservation. Rose (1996) proposes a matrix of

approaches to wildlife14. Persons who work in business, medicine and economics are typically biased in

favour of the exploitation of biodiversity. Professionals in politics and law, agriculture and political

science are typically biases in favour of the extraction and domestication products for human use;

practitioners in theology, ecology and anthropology are typically biased towards reverence or respect for

wildlife; professionals in the arts and humanities, along with conservationists and sociologists are

typically biases towards stewardship and preservation. As a consequence, when we call together a team of

professionals to analyze research findings and set priorities, it is absolutely necessary to include a broad

and balanced mix of individuals with the full panoply of values and biases, from naturalists to wildlife

biologists, ecologists, veterinarians, anthropologists, economists, political scientists. It would be

worthwhile to better represent certain disciplines within FAO, such as cross-cultural relations, and social

anthropology.

Spotting successful partnerships:

Numerous partnerships have been formed worldwide during the past two decades, attempting to

address the wild meat issue. Some concentrate on narrow local targets while others try to coordinate at a

broader scale: regionally, nationally, or internationally. Some of these partnerships lasted only a short

period while others have been in operation for a long time. Analyzing the successes as well as failures

could identify ways of cooperating in such a complex issue. Some examples are described in annex 715.

As an example, TRAFFIC has been supporting a participatory process for the development of a Central

African Bushmeat Monitoring System (SYVBAC). Stakeholders involved represent the working expertise

from six central African countries in the region. The UK also provides a good example of cooperation

14 Annex 6 - Matrix of approaches to wildlife.

15 Annex 7 - Spotting successful partnerships so far.

71

between different governmental departments and agencies at a national level, working to prevent diseases

emergence and/or transmission from illegal imports of wild meat. Finally, HUNT or “Hunting for

Sustainability” is a project consisting of a number of partners and participants, distributed both across

different research fields as well as geographical areas. The overall goal of the project is to assess the

social, cultural, economic and ecological functions and impacts of hunting across a broad range of

contexts in Europe and Africa. HUNT seeks to understand what influences value systems and attitudes to

hunting, how these attitudes influence and determine individual and societal behaviour in hunting, and

finally, how this hunting behaviour influences biodiversity.

An internal working group on wild meat at FAO is a valuable instrument or “organizational” model to

overcome the complexity of the issue. Nonetheless, such initiatives face several obstacles: they are

difficult to set up and maintain, they require political will and resources, and results are not likely to come

overnight. The initiation of a proactive dialogue between all FAO stakeholders, their involvement to

collaborate in common programs grounded in goodwill, teamwork, and competence is an indispensable

basis to formulate recommendations that converge pragmatically towards a more sustainable use of wild

meat.

b. Converging to support a common approach:

The search for solutions to make the use of wild meat sustainable has stimulated the emergence of

various paradigms that shift from over time. Building a collective vision from Animal Health, Nutrition,

Forestry, Economic, Social, and Natural Resources, etc. is a challenging task, requiring a conceptual

framework. In this chapter, we will discuss the more commonly used existing frameworks and the

solutions provided through such approaches. It is of importance to analyse the strengths and weaknesses

of each in order to understand how they fail in achieving more sustainable practices. Learning from past

experiences regarding wild meat is valuable to inform future efforts (S. Khomenko, personal

communication, 2011). In the end, we will propose what could be the most pragmatic approach for FAO

to address the issue.

i. From conservation to development and health:

1. First paradigm: to protect biodiversity from people:

Conservation-based strategies:

According to conservationists, what they called the “wild meat crisis” can be solved, at least in

theory, by lowering demand for it through controlling the supply (Milner-Gulland and Akcakaya, 2001).

72

They argue that curbing commercial wild meat supply to consumers, especially those in urban areas, is

ultimately the most pragmatic answer. This approach both combines wild meat supply control through

effective hunting laws and enforcement in areas of high consumptive use, and wild meat demand

reduction by raising awareness and educating consumers about other options. The first component,

hunting bans, implies finding alternative income generating strategies for people relying on hunting as

livelihood revenue. The second one implies supporting and promoting new consummatory habits,

replacing wild meat on markets with alternative source of proteins. In the long term, these measures are

seen to benefit rural livelihoods by reducing pressure on an important resource.

Wild meat supply control:

Law enforcement (penalties for hunting protected species) and other measures to enhance PAs

management capacity have been the main strategies of the governments to date. For example, in

Tanzania, hunting for wild meat is illegal according to the Wildlife Conservation Act (1974) and the

Tanzania Wildlife Policy (1998) controls the harvesting. This scope of interdiction through continued

PAs is questionable. First, penalties would be more effective if they target wild meat sales, rather than the

act of hunting (Damania, Milner-Gulland and Crookes, 2005). Furthermore, this model excludes the user

from the resource and severe conflicts between poachers and wildlife officers (arrests, poaching gear

confiscation, self-defense) increase tensions. From lessons learned, the path of outright bans tends to

further criminalize the trade (Rowcliffe, De Merode and Cowlishaw, 2004). For instance, the most severe

restriction that CITES can enforce, an explicit ban on commercial trade of wild species threatened with

extinction, raises concerns that such bans themselves lead to an increase in trade of vulnerable species

(Rivalan, 2007). Concerns were first raised in 1985 that uplisting species to a more restrictive appendix

could make them more valuable to traders and consumers. Some have characterized CITES as an old-

fashioned command and control convention (Hutton and Dickson, 2000; Dickson, 2002).

When seeking ways of controlling supply for wild meat through the ban of illegal hunting and trading,

there is an important consideration: can hunters and traders within the regions identify and rely on

alternative sources of income?

Wild meat demand reduction:

Urban demand and rural supply are interactive. Social factors mediate the two-way relationship

between supply and demand and stimulate an accelerating demand for wild meat products. According to

conservationists, reversing this trend ad hoc will be more difficult than to prevent it (Wilkie & Carpenter,

1999). Prevention combines promotion of alternative protein source in urban areas where the demand is

73

strong, through raising awareness and environmental education (e.g. project led by the Jane Goodall

Institute (JGI) in Tanzania, operating through three programmes: the Gombe Stream Research, “Roots

and Shoots” and “TACARE”). The main media, radio, may have the best impact (Rose, 2000).

Manipulating wild meat prices on the markets has also been proposed to reduce wild meat market share.

But prevention and correction are both multi-locus and multi-factorial propositions. These actions need a

deep study on economic variables to understand the interactive effects.

When seeking ways of reducing demand for wild meat through the improved supply of alternatives,

there is an important consideration already raised: can consumers within the regions rely on alternative

sources of protein?

Wild meat alternatives development:

Conservationists have particularly favoured alternative provision for proteins and income generating

strategies. The objectives are to supply local and external markets to reduce hunting pressure, and to

provide economic opportunities for poor people.

Encouraging diversification of agricultural incomes:

Agriculture (crops): vegetable proteins:

A common suggestion for reducing hunting is promoting the investment in agricultural extension.

Farm households are generally engaged in production and consumption, with two production activities:

farming (livestock, vegetables) and hunting. Economists have found that increases in agriculture returns

are ambiguous in their effects on wild meat trade. On the one hand, they increase the proportion of labour

devoted to agriculture rather than hunting. On the other hand, they can increase the consumption of wild

meat because income rises and hunters gain access to more expensive and efficient technology such as

modern weapons.

Some aspects need to be clarified. Changing the relative profitability of different hunting and non-

hunting activities has been proposed, but the effects on wildlife populations are not necessarily obvious.

Damania, Milner-Gulland and Crookes (2005) developed a simple modelling approach to the household

economy with the aim of providing a firm theoretical foundation for discussions of policy options for

managing the wild meat trade prices. Their bioeconomic analysis model represents a step forward because

it explicitly considers wild meat as a component of the household economy. Increased wild meat prices

are likely to lead to a switch from snaring, cheaper but less efficient, to gun hunting, with a consequent

impact on vulnerable species. Such an increase can lead to substantial changes in the proportion of

different species consumed at home rather than being sold on the market. Increased agricultural prices

74

have an ambiguous effect on hunter behavior, depending on the balance between incentives to invest in

agriculture and increased consumption as incomes improve. This type of increase has the dual effect of

increasing the proportion of labour devoted to agriculture rather than hunting, and also increasing the

consumption of wild meat because incomes have risen.

Hunting is a male domain, seen as a fallback rather than a high prestige livelihood with men hunting

to earn cash in the absence of other livelihood options (Kumpell et al., 2010b). Policies aimed at

increasing the sustainability of hunting must address one reality: agriculture would not be considered and

valorised by men. Alternative livelihoods must be sufficiently labour-intensive or geographically separate

from high conservation value areas, otherwise men will continue hunting in their spare time. If few

alternative income sources exist for village men, reductions in hunting incomes may reduce the ability to

raise short-term cash for emergency use (Coad et al., 2010). Finally, in hunting societies, low value is

generally assigned to vegetable products, perceived as expensive in comparison to meat or fish (Ruel,

Minot and Smith, 2005). Meat is then a far more valuable market commodity than agricultural products.

While subsistence agriculture is likely to be a major contributor to overall household production, it

contributes little to household income.

Breeding: animal proteins from livestock, wildlife farming and/or ranching:

Livestock:

Consumer behavior is affected by meat prices, thus, if cheaper alternative domestic meat such as beef,

pork, chicken or goat were available, people might purchase significant less wild meat (Wilkie and

Godoy, 2001). Poultry farming for instance has a relatively rapid turnover compared to other livestock,

requires less capital investment and running costs, can easily be managed and inspires youths to become

involved.

However, these substitutes can only be part of the solution if these are regularly and widely available,

and above all economically accessible to potential buyers. Whilst livestock meat is available in most rural

areas, it is not affordable.

Substitution is further complicated by environmental realities. In many tropical areas, traditional

livestock production is impossible, limited by disease (i.e. in Tanzania, wild meat is the only meat readily

available, especially in tsetse fly infested parts of the country) and low animal productivity (livestock fair

poorly in forests), and research and extension services are inadequate (Milner-Gulland et al., 2003). A

common alternative is raising cattle on grasslands and then moving them to communities in forested

areas; this could introduce infectious diseases of domesticated animals to naïve populations of wildlife

75

and people in remote areas. If livestock production increases, it would impact on land use. In Amazonia,

livestock ranching is a contributory factor driving deforestation. Livestock, especially European breeds,

have driven wildlife out of many different habitats in Africa, leading to a loss of biodiversity and wildlife-

based earning potential (Baldus, 2002). This needs to be mitigated for South America. The majority of

cattle are raised mainly in extensive grazing systems (poor reproductive efficiency but very low labour

input utilising land that has no value). Poultry and pigs are managed in intensive production systems (very

high reproductive efficiency but require high inputs in terms of buildings and feed) and these systems

have been an important component of satisfying increasing protein demands in South America over the

last 15 years. The future of wild meat in that region depends on the ability of the livestock and fisheries

sectors to supply affordable proteins, both have responded positively to increasing protein demand over

the 90s (Rushton et al., 2005).

Traditional dependence on livestock is very low in many countries in Central Africa. Domestic

animals are traditionally a sign of wealth accumulation and so consumption is often reserved for special

occasions such as weddings and religious festivals (De Garine, 1996).

Since wildlife is a renewable resource, it has ecological advantages over livestock. Wild meat is much

cheaper and preferred. Therefore, wherever wildlife production systems are possible on a sustainable

basis, these should be encouraged.

Captive breeding of wild species: wildlife farming/ranching:

Advantages of promoting wild meat production could be: answering a high demand for game for

cultural reasons; prices available to wild meat farmers can be high, particularly in urban market centres;

an increasing demand for wild game meat follows urbanization. Among the communities, it encourages

diversification of agricultural income for village family producers in rural or peri-urban areas; it

contributes a high protein source; it helps regulate commercialization and better satisfy a demand; it may

reduce hunting and trapping (this might be particularly important in buffer zones around protected areas

where law enforcement and anti-poaching surveillance need to be particularly strong); by-products can be

recycled (food in pisciculture, crop fertilizer, rearing earthworms). Such enterprise requires training.

Small production units should be initiated as pilot scheme, bringing together traditional and modern

systems of production, training local farmers, exploring which local resources can be best adapted to

housing, feeding and breeding the species.

In Africa, trials of intensive grasscutter farming initiated in 1985 by the Benin-German grasscutter (or

cane rat) rearing project (PBAA) in Benin yielded such interesting results that programmes aimed at

76

being replicated (Jori, Mensah and Adjanohoun, 1995). However, the results have to be mitigated: this

rodent is not a highly productive animal; its production is more complicated than that of traditional meat

animals. But its popularity appears unlimited and its growth rate compares well with that of local rabbits

in a tropical environment. This meat is not to be associated with any taboo or prohibition as a food item in

African culture (except in Central Africa, considered as a crop pest); in addition to its gastronomic

reputation, its biological value is greater. The species to breed need to be readily available and culturally

accepted, and better accepted as a source of protein than domestic livestock: African giant snail, giant rat,

brush-tailed porcupine; striped ground squirrel could be candidates (Anon, 2004; Chardonnet et al., 2002;

Wilkie et al., 1999).

In South America, there has been interest and recent attempts in domestication and raising of paca

(agouti), capybara and peccary. First results show that in addition to relatively high production costs,

wildlife farming have the additional disadvantages of higher marketing and processing costs and limited

access to markets due to food hygiene regulation. The only available market for such expensive meat

would be the exotic market in urban centres (Rushton et al., 2004).

Urban demand has a major impact. “Post-depletion sustainability” may be typical of mature urban

wild meat markets. Once an extinction filter has been passed; such markets should no longer be treated as

high conservation priorities. In Ghana, evidence suggests that large urban centres can be sustainably

supplied in bushmeat by robust species from an agricultural landscape. Properly managed, such a supply

could permit the bushmeat trade to continue without threatening the survival of protected species of

conservation concern (Cowlishaw, Mendelson and Rowcliffe, 2004).

Some authors have a sceptical view of such prospects. First, species that are currently being tested do

not have the complete set of biological characteristics for domestication (diet, growth rate, ability to breed

in captivity, easy disposition, tendency not to panic, well defined dominance hierarchy (Diamond, 1997)).

Costs of produced meat are high per kilo when compared to either meat from conventional farming or

wild meat from hunting. Stimulating demand for wild meat produced in such farms could have a negative

impact on animal conservation, as it might encourage increase hunting. The objective should be to reduce

costs to similar levels as meat produced by conventional farms in order to maintain profit margins; but

given the biological characteristics of the species being tested, it is very unlikely. The use of conservation

and development money to support such activities appear unjustified (Rushton et al., 2004).

77

Harvesting other types of wildlife: animal proteins from fishing and collecting invertebrates:

What are the levels of the other natural resources available? As the exploitation of natural resources

become increasingly global, it seems likely that large-scale economic interactions between different

resources will become apparent (Rowcliffe, Milner-Gulland and Cowlishaw, 2005).

Fish:

Research interest in linkages between fish and meat resources in the tropics has recently increased.

Some consumers might freely substitute meat and fish for another, based on positive correlations between

the price and consumption of the other. In Ghana, national levels of fish production and wild meat

consumption seem to be directly linked, but the nature of this relationship is not well known (Bashares et

al., 2004). Trends on the long run show that wild meat hunting increase in wildlife reserves across the

country during periods of low national fish production, given rise to accelerate declines in wildlife

abundance during these periods. This large-scale linkage is mediated by small-scale processes: at times of

low fish availability, the price of fish and the volume of wild meat sold in rural markets both increase,

suggesting that consumers treat wild meat as a substitute for fish. These results provide support for the

notion that increased demand for wild meat in West Africa is linked to reduce fish stocks in the Gulf of

Guinea, but we do not know who is to blame. Currently, fish stocks in the Gulf of Guinea are heavily

depleted and would be unlikely to meet the demand that might be released by the effective control of wild

meat hunting. While fishing license agreements (FLA) can be shown to affect fish supplies in West

Africa, it is difficult to establish a clear causal link between fishing license agreements and wild meat

demand (Watson and Brashares, 2004). In Gabon, wild meat availability can affect the consumption of

fish (Wilkie et al., 2005).

However, these data are based on wild meat hunted in the savannah rather than forests, and on

villages rather than towns and cities. Variation in local conditions, such as differences in the availability

of, and tastes for, fish and wild meat, might cause the linkage to break down. According to the zone, fish

can be cheap and wild meat an expensive luxury food. In Southeast Asia and West Africa, where many

large cities are close to the sea and seafood has long been a major source of protein, the proportion of the

people who can readily find other sources of protein is high; but in Central Africa, with its large

landmass, the situation differs. In the Amazonian basin, there are lots of rivers and fish abundance.

Invertebrates:

In areas such as the Congo Basin, insects contribute significantly to the food security and livelihoods

of the poor. Used as a standard ingredient, they are consumed by all levels of society. The relationships

78

between the wild meat and insect commodity chains are little understood, though there may be mutual

effects. Caterpillars are a traditional food and consumed according to their seasonal availability and

market price. Prices of caterpillars fluctuate significantly on local markets, though they are not necessarily

cheaper than meat or fish. In principle, caterpillars cannot be considered a substitute for farmed meat, the

supplies of which are not seasonally influenced. The situation with wild meat is less clear. Availability

and price of wild meat fluctuate widely according to season and market site, as well as type, cut, and state

of preservation. However, when supplies of wild meat and fish decline in the rainy season, then it does

seem that people rely more on caterpillars and other available insects (Vantomme et al., 2004). It is not

easy to draw any firm conclusions.

To sum up, the conservationist approach has its limitations. Enforcement-related interventions are not

appropriate in all circumstances, as well as not fully protecting remaining wildlife. By exclusion local

communities from the consultation decision processes, this approach may lead to the construction of

public policies devoid of historical information, and without much social resonance. Ignoring rural

perceptions and common goods destroy social cohesion and give little incentive to rural dwellers to

manage wildlife sustainably. Protected areas causes the foreclosure of future land options, with potential

significant economic costs (Adams et al., 2004). Wildlife management should be placed into a wider

framework of social justice and equity. The solutions to the problem of unsustainable offtake have more

to do with effective management than public education or awareness raising. Hunting wildlife and

consuming wild meat have long been part of human history and it seems unlikely that tastes and habits

will change dramatically in the near future. Stopping the trade on moral grounds is doubtful. The

alternatives proposed are delinked from the livelihood realities: there is no reason why they should not be

replacing hunting rather than complementary.

The CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) Liaison Group on Bushmeat recognizes that existing

policies and legal frameworks related to hunting are unpractical or unfeasible, provide unrealistic

approaches for enforcement, and ignore the economic and nutritional value of bushmeat (CBD, 2009).

Insufficient consideration is given to the social character of the trade, as well as the feasibility to

management options. A promising avenue is likely to lie in attempts to develop a community interest in

the forest resource as a whole, with wild meat as only one component of a broader system of community-

based natural resource management, for a more constructive engagement with local populations.

79

2. Second paradigm: to help people use biodiversity

sustainably:

Pro-poor conservation based-strategies: ICDPs:

Their exploration coincided with a more general trend in development studies to include local

communities in the planning and management of natural resources to promote economic growth (World

Conservation Union, 1980), and by ensuring that the interests of local people are taken into account in

making trade-offs (Adams and Hulme, 2001). These projects are called Integrated Conservation and

Development Projects (ICDPs) (or “people-centered conservation and development”, “eco-development”,

“grass-roots conservation”, “community-based natural resource management” (Kaeslin and Williamson,

2010). Community-based conservation can be a significant component to conventional government-led

PAs management and enforcement activities, especially in developing countries with limited budgets.

When local people are involved in and benefit from the management of natural resources, they are more

likely to support conservation efforts.

The political ecological model of game depletion (Bassett, 2005) points to specific areas of policy

intervention that could slow down, if not reverse, current trends towards local extinction. It involves:

reducing rural poverty; strengthening the State for controlling the trade (licensing of hunters, traders,

restaurants owners). In this regard, hunters associations can play an important role; their decentralized

structures converge nicely with current policies promoting community-based resource management

programs. In Ivory Coast, traditional hunters proved to be effective wildlife guards.

Within this approach, there is a greater understanding of the normative and social practices at the

grassroots levels of societies. Effective internalized social controls replace external law-based

administrative mechanisms. Transgressions are automatically and reliably punished and continual

reinforcement of the system helps to maintain the community institutional framework uncontested

through succeeding generations. Village chiefs may serve as mediators (Rose, 2001).

However, there is no guarantee that reinstalling traditional control systems will necessarily provide

any easy institutional base for effective management. Global integration, monetisation of economies,

growing land and social complexity all challenge images of communities as cohesive entities. Devolving

ownership of wildlife without effective institutional incentives to promote equity and sustainability could

well marginalise large numbers of users. The common access and usufruct rights may be threatened by

changes in the land tenure regime.

80

In adopting an ICDP approach, it is important to avoid certain assumptions. Reviewing ICDPs,

Schreckenberg, Luttrell and Moss (2006) recognized “the need to address concerns that the benefits from

participatory forest management may not be sufficient to cover the costs imposed on poor communities,

which raises doubts about the longer term viability of the approach”. The costs include the disruption of

established patterns of resources use by local people.

It is becoming apparent that heavy investments will be required if management models are to be

established on a scale sufficient both to secure the well being of large numbers of poor people, and to

conserve the resource. It may also fail when people realize that individual costs associated with the

approach are higher compared to individual gains, or that the costs and gains are not distributed fairly

among community members. The approach relies heavily on altruism and volunteering (Songorwa, 1999).

A case study from Zambia shows that these programs misunderstand some of the economic, political

and social benefits of local hunting. As a result, they succeed in protecting some of the larger mammals

only by virtue of their increased enforcement levels, not their ability to distribute socioeconomic benefits.

Rather than support conservation, local hunters continue to kill game at a rate comparable to the days

before the programs, although they have shifted their tactics and prey selection (Gibson and Marks,

1995).

To conclude, conventional solutions to the problem of excessive use, such as linking community

participation, land tenure reform and the reinstatement of traditional control systems are very uncertain

routes to poverty alleviation in an increasing complex world. Even where such mechanisms are politically

feasible, the transactions costs may well outweigh the benefits that accrue. Under present tenurial

arrangements, the incentives for forest dwellers to conserve wildlife are almost always negative. New

forms of ownership should be found.

Development-based strategies:

Rights-based management (entitlements):

Increasingly, communities are demanding the rights to manage their natural resources; and some

governments are responding by making the necessary policy and legislative changes to give them

exclusive rights. But globally, there is a strong political resistance to the move. These rights need to

encompass any benefits from consumptive and non-consumptive uses within the wider environment.

Rights-based management systems, enabling people to negotiate access and assert their entitlement to

81

resources are an important tool to broker better development opportunities (Inamdar, Brown and Cobb,

1999).

The allocation of forest exploitation rights to local communities may well lead to better management

of timber and NTFP resources, and could have potential in relation to hunting and wild meat. One reason

for this is that the social capital created by the former enterprise could become available to the latter - a

classic joint production issue, and hence a means of lowering transaction costs where they might

otherwise be prohibitive.

Examples from other natural resource sectors, such as inshore fisheries, may provide useful models to

regulate the offtake and enable the poor to define their rights to wildlife resources in communal

management regimes. Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) are one class within the rights-based

management. It is a percentage of the total allowable catch, which is set annually on the basis of catch

history. Pastoralists, cultivators and fisherfolk in the inland Niger Delta in Mali have decided and defined

their temporal access rights over the floodplains of the inland Niger Delta (Inamdar, Brown and Cobb,

1999), showing one way in which traditional and contemporary decision-making systems can be blended

together to regulate access to natural resources. Finally, the caribou co-management in the Canadian

Arctic is an example of effective conservation, addressing local livelihoods rights and needs, as well as

the ecological realities of caribou herds and their habitats. This form of co-management was strengthened

in with the signing of an Agreement, a comprehensive document that includes a land claim settlement and

plans for a new territory with the Canadian federation; and was subsequently complemented by wildlife

management institutions (Hurst, 2004)16.

A step forward: legalizing wild meat production and trade: the most effective

management strategy?

Simply banning hunting for wild meat to protect the most vulnerable species, even if it were possible

to implement, would extinguish a key livelihood strategy and likely reduce nutrition status for many rural

poor. Hunters and consumers can relatively easily substitute different wild meat species as and when they

become scarce or locally extinct but, from a conservation perspective, there is no substitute for an extinct

species. At the end, protection of species that cannot withstand hunting needs to be balanced with the

rational offtake of those that can.

16 Annex 8 - Lessons from co-management of caribou herds in the Canadian Arctic.

82

A case study in DRC contradicts a commonly held view that banning market sales of wild meat, and

restricting consumption to subsistence use, offers a “win-win” strategy to the benefit of both conservation

and the poor. All, but the very poorest, are likely to rely on sales. Selling wild meat benefits the poor

relatively more than the rich (De Merode, Homewood and Cowlishaw, 2003).

A revision of the legal frameworks to create legitimate channels of wild meat trade seems relevant

and implies to identify clearly the possibilities for legitimate and legal trade. To mitigate against the

potential for tensions between livelihoods and conservation objectives following such an option, what has

been proposed is a strong enforcement in restrictions on protected species, while allowing legal hunting

on more resilient ones. A sustaining industry from sustainable stocks of non-vulnerable species with

highly reproductive rates, using forest protection more selectively to preserve the vulnerable species in

isolated forest areas seems to be the best strategy for achieving a win-win scenario (Brown and Williams,

2003).

Some of the species traded, such as cane rats Thryonomys spp, bushpig Potamocherus spp., bushbuck

Tragelaphus scriptus and some duikers Cephalophus spp. can withstand a relatively high level of hunting

pressure, are not currently threatened and could be candidates for sustainable offtake (Chardonnet, 2002).

But legal wild meat hunting involving resilient species usually occurs within the informal,

unregulated economy alongside the illegal trade of vulnerable species. The trade is thus a hidden and

undervalued part of national economies. Bringing the trade in resilient species into the formal economy

could provide the impetus needed to monitor and manage stocks effectively while improving protection of

vulnerable species. This could make wild meat amenable to the kinds of policy tools open to fisheries.

However, this possibility is hampered by a lack of good governance and a failure to implement and

enforce exiting law. This option is regarded with scepticism by preservationists: some of the preferred

hunting technologies do not discriminate at all and hunters will be tempted to take even protected animals

when they come within range. Moreover, a sustainable trade would still continue to bring humans and

wildlife in close contacts, maintaining the risk of zoonotic disease emergence through increased

opportunities for transmission.

At the end, a balanced solution could be a properly regulated and sustainable trade that is actively

monitored by multidisciplinary teams of experts. More investment in Africa, in areas that ensure

education and political stability and move beyond resource depletion, would go a long way in controlling

the wild meat trade and reducing the disease risk.

83

The wild meat trade should be seen as an economic driver that is worth investing in a regulate trade to

bring benefits to the rural poor, in regions that are particularly food-insecure. Are rural farmers benefiting

from the trade or are the bulk of the profits going to traders and retailers? Encouraging sustainable

hunting levels require that benefits reach forest areas, through fair prices for hunters who have

traditionally lived in or near the supply areas; this in turn offers a long-term incentive for hunters to

support sustainable management systems, with wild meat species integrated into plans for managing a

wide range of forest resources. Four actions could be taken to effectively and sustainably manage wild

meat hunting and trading (Davies, 2002):

- Address direct causes of loss of wild meat species (hunting and trapping methods, levels

of off-take, access to forest areas) and underlying ones (economic, social and institutional

pressures; many of the latter are also those underline poverty, such as weak governance or

unfavourable terms of trade);

- Revise poverty assessments and include the importance of environmental resources;

- Implement environnemental procedures, standards set in bilateral agencies: Strategic

Environmental Assessments (SEAs) for proposed policy reforms and detailed Environmental

Impact Assessments (EIAs): the latter are important because road building, and associated

improved access has been identified as a major factor in loss of wild species; the wild meat issue

should appear in the manuals used during these assessments: conservation agencies should be

offering support;

- Develop systems of co-management: given the weakness of government and political

instability, new management regimes need to be built that involve local communities,

governments and private sector, building people-centered development and the development of

good governance at the local level.

A practical application of this strategy is a five-years FAO/GEF (Global Environment Facility)

“bushmeat project” for the sustainable management of the wildlife and wild meat sector17, which is about

to start in Central Africa, early 2012. Four key project goals include: legal and policy reforms;

development of Participatory Wildlife Management (PWM) tools; institutional capacity building;

monitoring and evaluation. This project aims at giving communities exclusive rights to wildlife on their

land and making it legal to harvest and sell wildlife under well-defined criteria. It will decriminalize wild

meat production where it is sustainably produced and meets biodiversity conservation objectives. The

Forestry Department is highly implicated in the implementation of the project.

17

Annex 9 - FAO/GEF programme goals on Sustainable Management of the Wildlife and Bushmeat Sector in Central Africa.

84

Although the challenges remain high and successes depend on the context, the integration of

conservation and development is standard practice today. Legalizing and legitimating the trade is prone to

reconcile development, conservation and public health practitioners.

3. Third paradigm: conservation moves from saving

biodiversity to promote biosynergy:

The dichotomy discussed so far (to protect biodiversity from people versus to help people use

biodiversity sustainably) has let some authors unsatisfied. The latter consider both strategies

unidirectional in their methods and objectives. They call for a paradigm shift, which affirms the

overriding importance of interchange among key elements of humanity and nature (Rose et al., 1998).

This paradigm highlights the need to focus science, strategic planning, and innovative interventions and

developments on the relationships among human and non-human factors. The aim is to understand and to

influence “biosynergy”. Biosynergy is defined as the collaborative and mutually beneficial interaction of

all living elements within regional ecosystems, which leads to individual, social, and ecological stability,

longevity, and enrichment (Rose, 2001). With commitment to mutual benefit for all stakeholders, human

and non-human, this approach stands on the ground of global ethics and ideal.

4. Fourth paradigm: the risk analysis:

Public attitudes towards wild animals are often contradictory. In developed countries where the

problem of food security has been solved to a large degree, public concern is concentrated on health

implications, food safety and animal welfare, along with a debate on the social status of both wild and

domestic animals. Of particular relevance are the implications of the illegal wild meat import for human

and animal health through possible diseases transmission. In developing countries, which often have the

greatest biodiversity, wildlife constitutes a food security net and an uncontrollable source of often-

unknown zoonoses (Pastoret et al., 2000). Consequently, zoonoses can be seen as the focal point of the

concern for both developed and developing countries.

Eating wild meat places both people and wildlife at risk. Emerging zoonosis related with the use of

wild meat illustrate the recent convergence of food safety and biosecurity aspects of human and animal

health. Forests empty of wildlife but still scattered with villages suggest that wild meat hunting may be a

significantly greater threat to the health of wildlife that to the health of people, at least in the short run.

85

Emerging and re-emerging diseases are seen as threats and play an increasing role in conservation and

wildlife management of NHPs, for example. Managers and policy makers must formulate conservation

plans in an arena plagued by uncertainty, complexity, emotion, and politics. Food security is threaten as

well with EIDs, lessons can be easily taken from the spread of virus which endanger livestock industry in

the occidental world, leading to massive slaughtering of animals not proper to be consumed.

Understanding whether or not people perceive hunting, butchering and eating wild animals as a health

risk sufficient to change their behavior is important as it may offer, through a concern for public health, a

new avenue for reducing unsustainable hunting. This is challenging: evaluating and acting on health risks

is notoriously a difficult task, starting with estimating the number of contact events required for a

zoonotic disease of wildlife to become established in a population. Without this information, it is

impossible to assess the risk to the public and the likelihood that individuals will perceive the risk as

sufficient to alter their behavior (Wilkie, 2006).

Three steps motivate a behavior change: first, the audience must be aware of the problem of risk;

second, they must believe that the consequence of maintaining the status quo is harmful; third, they must

change their behavior. An understanding of the micro-level behaviors associated with butchering and

preparing the animal, as food will be essential for the epidemiological work on risk emergence. Could risk

of disease change bushmeat-butchering behavior? The dietary benefits of eating wild meat appear to

outweigh concern. A contrary influence of education level and wealth has been reported: better-educated

individuals report eating more wild meat (Wilkie, 2006). Some studies suggest that wild meat is an

inferior good in economic terms and that consumption declines with increasing wealth. Given this

economic development may have positive effect on both public health risk from wildlife and the

conservation status of wildlife consumed.

The risk analysis process constitutes one paradigm that has recently gained international acceptance.

It provides a framework that brings together scientists and policy experts to make better decisions for both

people and animals (Travis et al., 2006). The thrust behind better linkages between science and policy is

that, first, researchers and scientists need to know a great deal about what goes on in the policy world to

investigate and theorize intelligently, and policymakers will profit if they can get analysis and advice

from researchers and scientists who have expertise on matters that policymakers care about, and, second,

researchers and scientists have a responsibility to investigate vital real-world issues, and especially

controversial ones (Newman, 2010). As an example, the recent Intergovernmental Science-Policy

Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) helps to link science and economics to the

policy step-change needed to conserve biodiversity (Rands et al., 2010). Risk analysis is a

86

multidisciplinary, science-based process that provides an organized and logical approach for

incorporating scientific information into policy development in the real world.

Risk analysis usually consists of four interconnected phases: hazard identification; risk assessment

(with three steps: release, exposure and consequences); risk management and risk communication (and

particularly how the results will be communicated to policy-makers). By blending these four specific

goal-oriented stages, one can logically assess the probability that an adverse event will occur. An adverse

event could be the introduction of an EID into a naive population, but also the occurrence of a severe

depletion of protein or the extinction of one species. The complexity of wild meat issue points out the

need for an involvement in risk-based analysis at national, regional and international level. Risk analysis

could exceed the basic scope of diseases Human population protein requirements and the need for

particular attention to one species on the brink of extinction should be part of planning as well as diseases

emergence. It offers the possibility to develop a global strategy that links food security, food safety and

conservation aspects, through a process of forecasting and coordinated response. Cross-dimension risk

management decisions take into account competing risks and cost/benefits.

To conclude, the conceptual frameworks used so far have tended to favour either one or another

dimension (food security, biodiversity conservation or health) or a scope level (field level or global scale)

in dealing with the issue. But wild meat is not one thing but many and not a simple policy choice that can

be accepted or rejected (Adams and Hulme, 2001; Nasi et al., 2008). Much of work consists of filling in

the holes in existing paradigms, not creating new ways of viewing the issue. A step forward is to fully

include food security, health, and biodiversity conservation dimensions within the same approach, to

address the issue in the more holistic view.

ii. FAO and One Health:

The “One Health” paradigm has existed for several thousand years and involves an integrated

approach to human, animal and ecosystems health. This framework is used within the Animal Health

Division to reduce risks of infectious diseases at the animal–human–ecosystems interface. How could it

reconcile conservation, public health and development interests at the same time?

The WHO defines human health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and

not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO, 1946). In this dissertation, the links between

wildlife hunted for wild meat and health have been explored in different ways.

87

Firstly, wild meat is an important part of healthy diets thanks to its high nutritional value (providing

proteins, but also vitamins and minerals) and contribute to food security.

Secondly, the use of wild meat has been linked to the emergence of EIDs, a widely recognized health

threat; largely associated with tropical regions but having impacts that extend globally. The use of wild

meat per se is not the cause of either associated infectious disease emergence or their global increase, EID

causality is more complex. The main driver is the exponential growth in population, consumption and

waste generation of the past several decades, which has driven the combination of urbanization,

agricultural expansion and intensification, and forest habitat alteration that results in regional

environmental change. Exposure to EIDs is a sensitive indicator of the ecological and cultural costs that

hunter-gatherers are paying to get their share of modernity, pointing out sensitive sociopolitical problems.

Thirdly, biodiversity provides essential services to human societies. As such, it is a main element of

our security and well-being. While pathogens are part of the biodiversity, many studies show that their

prevalence is reduced in ecosystems richer in biodiversity. More generally, threats to biodiversity result in

additional health problems making nature conservation and health a common cause. Wildlife hunted for

wild meat, if managed sustainably, keeps on providing its services to the ecosystems. Hunting has even

been shown to participate to forest ecosystem balance.

Last but not least, wild meat is culturally part of community diet since millennia, giving a sense of

identity and community. It is increasingly recognized that culture greatly influences people’s quality of

life, sense of well-being and health. Among hunter-gatherers, hunting and eating wild meat is seen as an

interface between the village and nature. Beliefs and practices around wild meat are integrated within

cultural systems. On a more global scale, protection of cultural diversity can serve as insurance against

overdominance of western cultural models, which have often been characterized as stress-ridden and

unhealthy, both physically and mentally (O’Brien, 2006).

To sum up, the One Health approach enables to integrate conservation of wildlife biodiversity with

objectives of poverty reduction, food security and disease reduction when addressing the wild meat issue.

Factors mitigating against the adoption of a One Health approach include but are not confined to funding

pressures, other national or subnational priorities, a lack of understanding of One Health and its potential

benefits, and conservatism. Policy opportunities exist to support One Health by demonstrating cost

benefits and efficiencies that can derive from such an approach, and to support human amenity in areas

such as public health and biodiversity.

88

The “One Health” approach appears to be the best one to give potential for FAO to address the wild

meat issue in the most holistic way. Besides, this framework was favoured during the October 2011

internal workshop discussions. Plus, it helps achieve FAO strategic objectives and the broader goals of

sustainable development.

c. Recognizing the issue’s relevance to the FAO mandate:

FAO's vision is: “a world free of hunger and malnutrition where food and agriculture contributes to

improving the living standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically, socially, and

environmentally sustainable manner”. To be efficiently addressed by FAO, the wild meat issue has to be

framed within the FAO mandate. This chapter offers a unique perspective on the issue, identifying key

features to consider for discussions within a major international organization.

i. A cause for institutional dialogue at an international level:

Discussions on “Wild meat, livelihoods and, sustainability” are relevant to wider issues of public

governance and international development policy for at least three reasons: the safety-net functions of

wild meat hunting and trade (food security and source of income to vulnerable populations, both rural and

urban); the progress in the management of internationally resources such as wild meat may leverage

broader benefits in terms of good public governance (Brown and Williams, 2003); and finally, public

health risks entailed.

1. Poverty and the unsustainable use of wild meat:

sharing common underlying causes:

Traditionally, international development assistance programs have not addressed the needs of remote

forest people who live at the margins of the cash economy (Adams et al., 2004). Additionally,

international development targets have been weakly linked to conservation goals. The often-intangible

benefits provided by environmental services still sit uncomfortably with agencies’ performance

indicators, which tend to focus on economic and social progress (Constanza et al., 1997; Ottaviani and El-

Hage Scialabba, 2011). How can we address the problem of species extinctions resulting from

unsustainable hunting in the context of sustainable development?

89

Wild meat is important to local, national and international economies but much of the trade is

informal. A regulated wild meat trade, which maintains the supplies of appropriate species from wildlands

and anthropogenic habitats, can contribute to economic growth in countries where there are few other

options. This argument is in line with the economic thought that growth in sub-Saharan Africa will need

to stem from the sustainable use of natural resources whereas economic growth based on unsustainable

use of natural resources is unlikely to yield sustained poverty reduction (Davies, 2002).

Taking this into account, one way to alleviate poverty is through the development of rural livelihoods

based on sustainable use of natural resources, for instance through improved wild meat economy. As a

consequence, the wild meat issue should be included in National Poverty Reduction Strategies (NPRS).

This integration is of course challenging. Pivotal to the discussion is the issue of the scale, both

temporal and spatial (Rao and McGowan, 2002). Eradication of poverty requires action that will allow

human communities to benefit demonstrably in the short term whereas conservation of wildlife has no

time limit. Conservationists are typically concerned with the integrity of habitats and ecosystems whereas

many development schemes are community-based poverty eradication programs that operate at a finer

scale. Although there appears to be no working models of sustainable socio-economic development

through increased wildlife harvest in tropical forests, there are projects in savannah ecosystems, such as

the Administrative Management Design Project (ADMADE), in Zambia, that offers valuable lessons and

show that these challenges are worth combating (Clarke, 2000). Conservationists are technically capable

of providing relevant scientific information on sustainable off-take rates, the scale of the wild meat trade

and the extent of human dependence on wild meat. But conservation organizations are ill equipped to

address the issue of poverty, lacking both the technical and financial capabilities to do so. It is in this

context that the conservationists can seek to collaborate with agencies in the development sector. The

fraction of international funding that goes to conservation agencies should not be undermined by

conflicting development actions, or poverty reduction will be compromised by unsustainable use of

natural resources (Inamdar, Brown and Cobb, 1999).

2. Governance and the unsustainable use of wild meat:

managing a common resource:

The unsustainable use of wild meat is first and foremost a problem resulting from an unmanaged

common resource being unsustainably harvested due to inadequate governance and policy frameworks

and the nature of the resource itself. Wildlife for meat is a “common” resource characterized by low

ownership, mobility, non-recognition of user rights, criminalization of use, difficulty of monitoring, and

90

low barriers to entry in its exploitation (Inamdar, Brown and Cobb, 1999). The situation can be seen as a

crisis of the overall governance of the forest zone, and needs to be addressed as one element of a broader

strategy towards reforming the governance of natural resources.

The fact that the positive values of such a major commodity are unacknowledged by most policy

makers, failing to appear in national economic statistics or to be subject to budgetary allocations by the

state, reveals much about the political economy of natural resource exploitation in the tropics, as well as

the historical evolution of tropical governance. Wild meat and other products of the hunt tend to feature

among those goods conceded by range state governments, as part of a tacit agreement which separates

“traditional” products for domestic consumption and the generation of lower- level public sector rents

from “modern”, industrial commodities which enter into the circuits of national wealth generation and

political patronage, and over which the population at large has no established right of voice (Brown,

2003).

The State monopolizes control over high value timber and mineral resources in the forest, without

necessarily having the capacity to manage those resources for real public benefit. As such it should be

considered as a facet of the “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968) and be dealt with in the broader

framework of renewable resource management. Ideally, one would begin by putting in place sound

governance regimes for the management of all resources, not just wild meat. Such regimes are an

important element in the development of the sustainable use of renewable natural resources. Recent

political developments suggest that decentralization and devolution of government could contribute to the

more effective and efficient management of local natural resources. However, several examples suggest

that decentralization leads to short term resource exploitation rather than a long-term sustainability

approach. This in part because of high local discount rates or short-term political concerns and interests.

For decentralization to work it must go hand in hand with empowering of the resource’s users and

educating them on what is sustainable. Such governance frameworks could be helpful at addressing land-

use issues relevant to the sustainable harvesting of wildlife (e.g. agriculture, establishment of protected

areas, regulating hunting practices) at the most appropriate level. In many cases this would also require a

radical re-examination of the tenure and resource-rights situations in rural areas, including (but not

limited to) the wild meat-producer areas (Nasi et al., 2008).

91

3. Unsustainable use of wild meat: a public health

concern with no boundaries:

The risk of emergence or re-emergence from hunting and eating wildlife is of global importance

(Wolfe et al., 2000), and threatens food security, public health and conservation.

Low and middle-income countries (LMIC) face many challenges when building capacity in public

health, control measures of the diseases are often poor, resulting in an increased burden of infectious

diseases on the poverty stricken. The widespread incidence of immunodeficiency with AIDS is likely a

consequence of poverty on sanitary protection and lack of information at both individual and state levels

lead control of certain diseases. These areas are high priorities of WHO programs to aid with diseases that

result from human immunodeficiency (tuberculosis, for example, a wild meat foodborne zoonosis).

Diseases can also push species to the brink of extinction. In order to avoid conflicts between

conservation goals and the protection of health and wild meat trade, we need to highlight two important

issues. First, diseases emerge due to anthropogenic activity, without this factor diversity is not a risk for

EIDs. Second, the positive value of diversity outweighs the risk of new disease emergence.

Some authors consider EIDs as one of the most important public health threats facing humanity, given

the multidimensional impacts to economic growth, food security, livelihoods and public health, as well as

to social order and international trade and travel (Cutler, Fooks and Van Der Poel, 2010). Microbes are

seen as biological weapons in the occidental word. Some perceive the international scale of the illegal

wild meat trade, as a huge threat not taken seriously by the competent authorities.

Rather than attempting to eradicate pathogens, the wild species that may harbor them or banning

completely the wild meat trade, a practical approach would include decreasing the contact rate among

species, including humans, at the interface created by wildlife and wild meat trade. Even if capacity is

increased and improved, transnational crime will not simply vanish. As evidenced by the experience of

advanced industrial nations, trade becomes more complex, more diverse, and more adaptable. The UN

Convention against Transnational Organized Crime is currently the best mechanism for international

enforcement of CITES (Zimmerman, 2003).

Food security, governance and public health are central pillars to the architecture of international

discussions, and key components of its instruments. Wild meat is an issue for international agencies.

92

ii. Working in line with the FAO objectives:

The three global goals of FAO Members are: 1. less hunger; 2. less poverty; and 3. sustainability.18 By

addressing the wild meat issue, what can be achieved is: 1. the provision of safe and nutrious wild meat,

contributing to dietary needs and food preferences of people; 2. economic and social progress for all and

sustainable livelihoods incorporating wild meat economy and 3. the use of all natural resources, including

wild animals, in an ecologically sustainable manner. Addressing the issue is thus fully in line with FAO

vision and global goals of Members.

In line with FAO Medium - Term Plan 2010-2013, FAO can prepare and endorse discussions on wild

meat and sustainability that encourages each concerned Department or Division to champion at least one

of the eleven specific FAO strategic objectives: Improved quality and safety of foods at all stages of the

food chain; Sustainable management of forests and trees; Enabling environment for markets to improve

livelihoods and rural development; Improved food security and better nutrition; Gender equity in access

to resources, goods, services and decision-making in the rural areas.

FAO, as one of the world’s leading development institutions, can catalyze efforts to help achieve

sustainable use of wild meat, which could contribute to the realization of fundamental challenges beyond

2011, along with FAO UN and non-UN international partners:

- First, the realization of the Millennium Development Goals19, within the objective to

significantly reduce worldwide poverty by the year 2015 (UNDG, 2003). A sustainable use of

wild meat is key to “eradicate extreme poverty and hunger” (as a source of food and income); to

“promote gender equality”, to “improve health” (nutritional quality of the meat to cover protein

and vitamin needs); to “combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases” (through disease intelligence and

prediction and tracking on EIDs); to “ensure environmental sustainability” (through biodiversity

conservation) and finally to “develop a global partnership for development” (transversal

approach across dimensions and disciplines);

- The CBD and Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of

biodiversity confirms the right and the need for the sustainable use of natural resources (CIC,

2008). At the 10th Conference of the Parties of the CBD in Nagoya, Japan, in 2010, governments

adopted a new strategic plan containing a vision for 2050 and new biodiversity targets to be

18

Annex 10 - FAO Mandate, Strategic Objectives and Core functions.

19 Annex 11 - The Millennium Development Goals.

93

achieved by 2020. To address the continued global loss of biodiversity, the plan proposes

pursuing three interconnecting priorities: to manage biodiversity as a public good; to integrate

biodiversity into public and private decision-making, and to create enabling conditions for policy

implementation (the establishment of appropriate institutions, governance, and behaviors) (Rands

et al., 2010);

- Finally, the United UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and

Change maintain that transnational organised crime is one of six key global security challenges

(United Nations, 2004). Wildlife is often listed as trafficking, along illicit drugs, people, and

arms.

94

Conclusion

The sustainability of wildlife hunting and wild meat consumption is questionable, especially in a

globalized world with limited resources and prone to profound changes in social dynamics. The solutions

proposed thus far to achieve sustainable practices have been minimally effective, due to insufficient

consideration of a holistic approach to the underlying mechanisms of the issue and due to insufficient

dialogue and coordination across sectors. It is clear that managing the components of this common natural

resource must be agreed upon across dimensions and disciplines and among all stakeholders, ranging

from local communities to international organizations.

Through its work as a specialized United Nations agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO) can play a key role in building such a collective vision. The issue is of relevance to FAO through

the implications on food security, public health, food safety, and biodiversity conservation and is in line

with FAO20 mandate, objectives and activities. Addressing the sustainability of wild meat use for

livelihoods can aid in raising levels of nutrition and bettering the lives of rural populations while

contributing to the growth of the world economy. Achieving food security for all is at the heart of FAO's

efforts - to ensure people have regular access to adequate high-quality food to lead active and healthy

lives in an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable manner.

FAO not only has a role to play, but also has competitive advantages over other organizations making

FAO a strong candidate for taking the lead on this issue. Indeed, the wild meat issue has been driven by –

conservationists, NGOs, and other organizations for a long time. Although these groups have done

significant work, they cannot be successful alone.

Firstly, the issue is sensitive, complex, and difficult to address. FAO provides a neutral meeting place,

where both rich and poor nations can come together to build a common understanding.

Secondly, the issue is global. Wildlife harvesting, trade, and consumption of wild meat occur across a

wide range of cultural patterns and at various geographic and economic scales. FAO has a worldwide

presence, and operates at the international level through key meetings and conferences, at the national

level in the field with regional offices across continents. This collaboration makes international and site-

specific efforts in dealing with wild meat possible.

20

Annex 12 - FAO Wild Meat Workshop Presentation on “The sustainable use of wild meat: a transversal issue for FAO”, 26th of

October 2011.

95

Thirdly, the issue is eminently transversal and multidisciplinary. FAO provides a cross-sectoral

expertise and serves as a knowledge network both locally and internationally.

Fourthly, data do exist but is patchy. FAO assembles and provides information, obtains new

knowledge, and makes this data available to the field.

Finally, the issue includes a wide range of stakeholders that must all be involved. FAO works in

partnership with institutions of all kinds; private foundations, grassroots organizations, companies,

professional associations, other United Nations agencies, national governments and more.

To conclude, FAO is in a position to take the lead in international efforts to tackle the complexity of

the wild meat issue. Coordination is fundamental, both within the organization and with a wide range of

interested parties. This coordination will be the catalyst for change. Internally, a strong collaboration will

start with a Position Paper within which trends, opinions, and options from the organization can converge

to a common position. The 26th of October 2011 the FAO interdepartmental workshop on Wild meat,

bushmeat, livelihoods and Sustainability gathered the expertise of FAO veterinarians, nutritionists, social

scientists, economists, foresters, fisheries, livestock specialists, and other professionals to share views and

knowledge on this specific issue. From the extensive objective discussions during this workshop, a

position paper will present and substantiate the various positions outlined with evidence and careful

analyses of medium-term and long-term trends. This paper will work towards pointing out antagonisms,

synergies, and perspectives, regarding the dimensions of food security, diseases emergence, food safety,

and biodiversity conservation. Such a document will enable further discussions on the interactions

between these dimensions. One Health should be the approach to address the ongoing concerns.

A position paper is written without the experimentation and original research normally present in an

academic paper. We acknowledge that further research21 is required before a full understanding can

justify follow-up advocacy and policy work on wild meat. However, while there is always an opportunity

to improve baseline information, significant knowledge on this important issue already exists, both within

and outside FAO. Development of a position paper will enable FAO to integrate the multidimensional

expertise necessary to address this complex issue and also highlight the strategic role FAO can play

amongst the international community on this important issue. What may have been sustainable in the past

is rapidly devolving and must be addressed and priorities identified. Coordination will make the

difference in outlining future actions and solution-orientated activities. In the meanwhile,

21 Annex 13 – Supporting research on wild meat and sustainability.

96

multidisciplinary crisis intervention projects with short-term mitigation plans can be useful to gain time

while a more broad and coordinated discussion is engaged.

There is no one fits all simple solution regarding wild meat, but a common approach to assist and

support countries in addressing the issue while not neglecting any dimension. We must work to provide a

global discussion platform for all stakeholders, develop operational and practical tools, and help countries

in the implementation of activities to use wild meat sustainably. The potential to achieve more sustainable

practices, achieve the broader goals of food security poverty alleviation and sustainable development,

while safeguarding health is an attainable one. The solution to the so-called “wild meat crisis” can be

found through inter-sectoral and multidisciplinary coordinated efforts to provide concrete management

strategies, and reduce undesirable economic, political, social and environmental impacts.

97

Bibliographical references

Adams, W.M., Hulme, D. 2001. If community-conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx,

35 (3): 193-200.

Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B. & Wolmer,

W. 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science, 306 (5699) : 1146-1149.

Aghokeng, A.F., Ayouba, A., Mpoudi-Ngole, E., Loul, S., Liegeois F., Delaporte, E. & Peeters, M. 2010.

Extensive survey on the prevalence and genetic diversity of SIVs in primate bushmeat provides insights into

risks for potential new cross-species transmissions. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 10 (3) : 386-396.

Aghokeng, A.F., Liu, W., Bibollet-Ruche, F., Loul, S., Mpoudi-Ngole, E., Laurent, C., Mwenda, J.M., Langat,

D.K., Chege, G.K., McClure, H.M., Delaporte, E., Shaw, G.M., Hahn, B.H. & Peeters M .2006. Widely

varying SIV prevalence rates in naturally infected primate species from Cameroon. Virology, 345 (1):174-189.

Alandia, E., Wallace, R. & Karesh, W. 2001. OIE Global Conference on Wildlife – Animal Health and

Biodiversity – Preparing for the Future – Paris (France), 23 – 25 February 2011 – Proceedings : Case story 1 :

Bolivia - Integrated disease prevention system for livestock, people and conservation – page 15.

Allebonne-Webb, S.M., Kumpel, N.F., Rist, J., Cowlishaw, G., Rowcliffe, J.M. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2011.

Use of market data to assess bushmeat hunting sustainability in Equatorial Guinea. Conservation Biology, 25

(3) : 597-606.

Alves, R.R. & Rosa, I.M. 2005. Why study the use of animal products in traditional medicines ? Journal of

Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 1(5), doi:10.1186/1746-4269-1-5.

Alves, R.R. & Rosa, I.M. 2007. Biodiversity, Traditional medicine and public Health : where do they meet ?

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 3(14), doi:10.1186/1746-4269-3-14.

Auzel, P. & Wilkie, D.S. 2000. Wildlife use in Northern Congo: hunting in a commercial logging concession.

In J.G. Robinson & E.L. Bennett, eds. Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests, pp. 413-426. New York,

Columbia University Press. 1000 pp.

Bahuchet, S. 1993. History of the inhabitants of the Central African rainforests: perspectives from comparative

linguistics. In : C.M. Hladik, A. Hladik, O.F. Linares, H. Pagezy, A. Semple & M. Hadley, eds. Tropical

forests, people and food, pp. 37-54. Paris, UNESCO Publishing, Parthenon Publishing Group. 852 pp.

Baker, S., Stell, D. Choi, Y. & al. 2010. Genetic evidence of illegal trade in protected whales links with the US

and South Korea. Biology letters, 6: 647-650. Doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0239.

Baldus, R.D. 2002. Bushmeat : some experiences from Tanzania. A paper presented to the bushmeat training

development workshop at the college of African Wildlife management, Mweka, Tanzania. 7th – 9th May 2002.

98

Barrett, M.A., Ratsimbazafy X. 2009. Luxury bushmeat trade threatens conservation. Nature, 461 : 470.

Bassett, J. T. 2005. Card-carrying hunters, rural poverty, and wildlife decline in northern Côte d’Ivoire. The

Geographical Journal, 71(1) : 71-82.

Bausch, D.G. 2011. Ebola Virus as a foodborne pathogen? Cause for consideration, but not panic. Journal of

Infectious Diseases, Editorial Commentary, 1-3.

Bell, D., Roberton, S., Hunter, P.R. 2004. Animal origins of SARS coronavirus: possible links with the

international trade in small carnivores. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 359 :1107-1114, doi

10.1098/rstb.2004.1492.

Bengis R.G. & Veary C.M. 1997. Public health risks associated with the utilization of wildlife products in

certain regions of Africa. Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 16(2) : 586-593.

Bengis R.G. 1997. Animal health risks associated with the transportation and utilisation of wildlife products.

Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 16(1) :104-110.

Bengis R.G., Leighton F.A., Fisher J.R., Artois M., Morner T. & Tate C.M. 2004. The role of wildlife in

emerging and re-emerging zoonoses. Rev. sci. tech. OIE, 23(2) : 497-511.

Bennett E.L. 2002. Is there a link between wild meat and food security? Conservation Biology, 16(3) : 590-592.

Bennett E.L., Blencowe, E., Brandon, K., Brown, D., Cowlishaw, G., Davies, G., Dubin, H., Fa, J.E., Milner-

Gulland, E.J, Robinson, J.G., Underwood, F.M. & Wilkie, D.S. 2007. Hunting for consensus: reconciling

bushmeat harvest, conservation and development policy in West and Central Africa. Conservation Biology, 21

(3): 884-887.

Bennett E.L., Nyaoi, A.J. & Sompud, J. 2000. Saving Borneo’s bacon: the sustainability of hunting in Sarawak

and Sabah. In J.G. Robinson & E.L. Bennett, eds. Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests, pp 305-324.

New York, Columbia University Press.

Bennett, M. 2006. Bats and human emerging diseases. Epidemiol. Infect. 134: 905-907.

Blankson-Arthur, S., Owiredu Yeboah, P., Golow, A., Osei Tutu, A. & Denutsui, D. 2011. Levels of

organochlorine pesticide residues in grasscuter (Thryonomys swinderianus) tissues. Research Journal of

Environmental and Earth Sciences, 3(4): 350-357.

Bodmer, R. & Puertas, P.E. 2000. Community-based comanagment of wildlife in the Peruvian Amazon. In :

J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett, eds. Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests, pp. 395-412. New York,

Columbia University Press.

99

Boesch, C. & Boesch, H. 1989. Hunting behavior of wild chimpanzees in the Täi National park. Am J Phys

Anthrop, 78: 547 – 73.

Boneva, R., Switzer, W.M., Spira, T.J. 2007. Clinical and virological characterization of persistent human

infection with Simian Foamy Viruses. AIDS Research and Human retroviruses, 23 (11) : 1330 – 1337.

Bourque, M., Higgins, R. 1984. Serologic studies on brucellosis, leptospirosis and tularaemia in moose (Alces

alces) in Quebec. J. Wildl. Dis., 20: 95-9.

Bowen-Jones, E., Brown, D. & Robinson, E. 2002. Assessment of the solution orientated research needed to

promote a more sustainable bushmeat trade in Central and West Africa. Report to the Wildlife & Countryside

Directorate, DEFRA, DETR, UK.

Bradley, C.A., Altizer, S. 2006. Urbanization and the ecology of wildlife diseases. Trends in ecology and

evolution, 22 (2) : 95 – 102.

Brashares, J.S., Arcese, P., Sam, M.K, Coppolillo, P.B, Sinclair, A.R.E. & Balmford A. 2004. Bushmeat

hunting, Wildlife declines and fish supply in West Africa. Science, 306 : 1180- 1183.

Brown, D. & Williams, A. 2003. The case for bushmeat as a component of development policy : issues and

challenges. International Forestry Review, 5(2) : 148-155.

Brown, S. 2003. Is the best the enemy of the good ? Livelihoods perspectives on bushmeat harvesting and trade

– some issues and challenges. Paper submitted to the CIFOR-Bonn Confernce on « Rural livelihoods, Forests

and Biodiversity » - Theme 4 : Improving livelihoods and protecting Biodiversity.

Brownstein, J.S, Freifeld, C.C, Reis, B.Y. & Mandl, K.D. 2008. Surveillance Sans Frontières : Internet-based

emerging infectious disease intelligence and the HealthMap project. PLoS Med, 5(7) : e151. Doi :

10.1371/journal.pmed.0050151.

Calattini, S., Betsem, E.B.A, Froment, A., Mauclère, P., Tortevoye, P., Schmitt, C., Njouom, R., Saib, A. &

Gessain, A. 2007. Simian Foamy Virus transmission from apes to humans, rural Cameroon. Emerging

Infectious Diseases, 13 (9) : 1314 – 1320.

Campbell, K., Nelson, V. & Loibooki, M. 2001. Sustainable use of wildland resources: ecological, economic

and social interactions – An analysis of illegal hunting of wildlife in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, Final

Technical Report, DFID Animal Health and Livestock Production Programmes, Project R7050.

CBD. 2009. Report of the Liaison Group on Bushmeat, First meeting, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15 - 17

October 2009 (available at www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/for/lgb-01/official/lgb-01-02-en.pdf). Viewed on 20

September 2011.

Chaber, A.L. 2008. An analysis of the African bushmeat trade in France. MSc Thesis, Royal Veterinary

100

College, London.

Chaber, A.L., Allebone-Webbs, S., Lignereux, Y., Cunningham, A.A. & Rowcliffe, J.M. 2010. The scale of

illegal meat importation from Africa to Europe via Paris. Conservation Letters, 3 : 317-321.

Chardonnet, P. 2002. The value of Wildlife. Rev. sci. tech. OIE, 21: 15 – 51.

Chardonnet, P., Bourgarel, M. & Vittrant, N. 1998. Game meat in sub-Saharan Africa : a misunderstood

resource. In : Second International Symposium on Game Birds and Mammals, 24-26 June, Mexico. Toluca,

Estado de México, Universidad Autonoma del Estado de México, 1 – 14.

CIC. 2008. Best practices in sustainable hunting – A guide to best practices around the world. FAO CIC

Technical Series Publication n°1.

Clarke, J.E. 2000. Evaluation of the wildlife conservation society’s administrative management and design

project. ARD-RAISE Consortium, Arlington, Virginia.

Coad, L., Abernethy, K., Balmford, A., Manica, A., Airey, L. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2010. Distribution and

use of income from bushmeat in a rural village, Central Gabon. Conservation Biology, 24(6) : 1510-1518.

Colfer, C.J.P, Sheil, D., Kaimowitz, D. & Kishi, M. 2006. Forests and human Health : assessing the evidence.

CIFOR Occasional Paper, number 45. 121 pp.

Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., V.

O’Neill, R., Paruelo, P., Raskin, R.G., Suttonkk, P. & Van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s

ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253 – 260.

Cowlishaw, G., Mendelson, S. & Rowcliffe, J.M. 2005. Evidence for post-depletion sustainability in a mature

bushmeat market. J. Appl. Ecolo., 42 :460-468.

Cowlishaw, G., Mendelson, S. & Rowcliffe, M. 2004. The bushmeat commodity chain : patterns of trade and

sustainability in a mature urban market in West Africa. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, number 7.

Cutler, S.J., Fooks, A.R. &Van Der Poel, W.H.M. 2010. Public health threat of new, remerging and neglected

zoonoses in the industrialized world. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 16 (1) : 1 – 7.

Damania, R., Milner-Gulland, E. & Crookes, D. 2005. A bioeconomic analysis of bushmeat hunting. Proc. R

Soc Lon B Biol Sci, 272: 259-266.

Daszak, P., Cunningham, A.A. & Hyatt, A.D. 2001. Anthropogenic environmental change and the emergence

of infectious diseases in Wildlife. Acta Tropica, 78, 103 – 116.

101

Davies, G. 2002. Bushmeat and international development. Conservation Biology, 16 (3) : 587 – 589.

De Garine, I. 1996. Chapitre 54: Préférences alimentaires et ressources de la foret camerounaise. In : A.

Hladik, H. Pagezy, O.F. Linares, J.A. Koppert & A. Froment, eds. L’alimentation en forêt tropicale:

interactions bioculturelles et perspectives de développement, pp. 857-874. UNESCO, Paris.

De Merode, E. & Cowlishaw, G. 2006. Species protection, the changing informal economy, and the politics of

access to the bushmeat trade in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Conservation Biology, 20 (4) : 1262 –

1271.

De Merode, E., Homewood, C. & Cowlishaw, G. 2004. The value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural

households living in extreme poverty in Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological Conservation, 118: 573 –

581.

De Merode, E., Homewood, K. & Cowlishaw, G. 2003. Wild resources and livelihoods of poor households in

Democratic Republic of Congo. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, number 1.

De Merode, E., Smith, K.H., Homewood, K., Pettifor, R., Rowcliff, M. & Cowlishaw, G. 2007. The impact of

armed conflict on protected-area efficacy in Central Africa. Biology letters, 3: 299 – 301.

Desalle, R., Amato, G. 2004. The expansion of conservation genetics. Nat. Rev. Genet., 5: 702 – 712.

Desbiez, A.L.J., Piovezan, A.K.U., Bodmer Ernets, R. 2011. Invasive species and bushmeat hunting

contributing to wildlife conservation/ the case of feral pigs in Neotropical wetland. Fauna & Flora

International. Oryx, 45 (1), 78 – 83.

DFID. 2000. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department for international Development, London.

Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, germs and steel. A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years. Vintage,

London.

Dickson, B. 2002. International conservation treaties, poverty and development : the case of CITES. ODI

Natural Resource perspectives, 74, January 2002.

Dudley, J.P., Ginsberg, J.R., Plumptre, A.J., Hart, J.A., Campos, L.C. 2002. Effects of war and civil strife on

wildlife and wildlife habitats. Conservation Biology, 16: 319 – 329.

Eaton, M.J., Meyers, G.L., Kolokotronis, S.O., Leslie, M.S., Martin, A.P. & Amato, G. 2010. Barcoding

bushmeat : molecular identification of Central African and South American harvested vertebrates. Conserv.

Genet., 11 : 1389-1404.

Entsie, P. 2002. Bushmeat crisis and its implications on food security sustainability: an overview. Report

delivered at the National Conference on bushmeat crisis in Ghana, organized by Conservation International

102

Ghana.

Etter, E., Donado, P., Jori, F., Caron, A., Goutard, F. & Roger, F. 2006. Risk analysis and bovine tuberculosis,

a re-emerging zoonosis. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 1081: 61 – 73. DOI : 10. 1196/annals.1373.006.

Eves, H.E. & Ruggiero, R.G. 2000. Socioeconomics and the sustainability of hunting in the forests of Northern

Congo (Brazzaville). In: J.G. Robinson & E.L. Bennet, eds. Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests, pp.

427-454. New York, Columbia university Press. 1000 pp.

Fa, J.E, Currie, D. & Meeuwing, J. 2003. Bushmeat and food security in the Congo Basin: linkages between

wildlife and people’s future. Environmental Conservation, 30 (1) : 71-78.

Fa, J.E., Juste, J., Delval, J.P & Castroviejo, J. 1995. Impact of market hunting on mammal species in

Equatorial Guinea. Conservation Biology, 9: 1107-1115.

Fa, J.E., Peres, C.A. & Meuuwig, J. 2002. Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an international

comparison. Conservation Biology, 16: 232-7.

Fa, J.E., Ryan, S.F. & Bell, D.J. 2005. Hunting vulnerability, ecological characteristics and harvest rates of

bushmeat species in afrotropical forests. Biological Conservation, 121: 167 – 176.

FAO. 2004. The Bushmeat Crisis in Africa: Conciliating Food Security and Biodiversity Conservation in the

Continent. In : FAO Report of the 23rd FAO Regional Conference for Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa,

32.a : 10 (appendix F, paragraph 59).

FAO. 2010. Biodiversity and sustainable diets : united against Hunger. FAO International Scientific

Symposium, Rome, 3 – 5 November 2010.

FAO. 2011. The state of food insecurity in the world. How does international price volatility affect domestic

economies and food security ? FAO Publication. 57 pp.

Fargeot, C. 2010. Bushmeat consumption in Central African Republic. XXIII IUFRO Congress, 23rd – 28th of

August 2010, seoul, South Korea.

Field, H.E. 2009. Bats and emerging zoonoses: henipaviruses and SARS. Zoonoses and Public Health, 56: 278

– 284.

Fison, M. 2011. The £6bn trade in animal smuggling. The Independent, Sunday 6 March 2011.

Fletcher, T.J. 1997. European perspectives on the public health risks posed by farmed game mammals. Rev. sci.

tech. OIE, 16 (2) : 571 – 578.

Formenty, P., Boesch, C., Wyers, M., Steiner, C., Donati, F., Dind, F., Walker, F. & Le guenno, B. 1999. Ebola

103

virus outbreak among wild chimpanzees living in a rain forest of Côte d’Ivoire. J Infect Dis, 179 (Suppl. 1): S

120-126.

FSA. 2005. Review of possible microbiological hazards that may be associated with the illegal importation of

bushmeat, Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food, Discussion paper (available at

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acm741.pdf).

Fuentes, A., Gamerl, S. 2005. Disproportionate participation by age/sex classes in aggressive interactions

between long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) and human tourists at Padangtegal monkey forest, Bali,

Indonesia. Am. J. Primatol., 66: 197 – 204.

Gardner, G. & Stern, P. 1996. Environmental problems and human behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn

and Bacon eds. 300 pp.

Geheb, K., Kalloch, S., Medard, M., Nyapendi, A.T., Lwenya, C. & Kyangwa, M. 2008. Nile perch and the

hungry of Lake Victoria: gender, status and food in an East African fishery. Food Policy, 33: 85 – 98.

Gibbs, E.P.J. 1997. The public health risks associated with wild and feral swine. Rev. sci. tech. OIE, 16(2) :594

– 598.

Godfroid, J. 2002. Brucellosis in wildlife. Rev. sci. tech. OIE, 21 (2), 277 – 286.

Guan, Y., Zheng, B.J., He, Q.Y., Liu, X.L., Zhuqng, Z.X., Cheung, C.L., Luo, S.W., Li, P.H., Zhang, L.J.,

Guan Y.J., Butt, K.M., Wong, K.L., Chan, K.W., Lim, W., Shortridge, K.F., Yuen, K.Y., Peiris, J.S.M & Poon,

L.L.M. 2003. Isolation and characterization of viruses related to the SARS coronavirus from animals in

Southern China. Science, 302: 276 – 278.

Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162 (3859): 1243–1248.

doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243. PMID 5699198.

Haydon, D.T., Cleaveland, S., Taylor, L.H., Laurenson, M.K. 2002. Identifying reservoirs of infection: a

conceptual and practical challenge. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 8 (12) : 1468- 1473.

Hayman, D.T.S., Emmerich, P., Yu, M., Wang, LF., Suu-Ire, R., Fooks, A.R., Cunningham, A. &Wood J.L.N.

2010. Long-term survival of an urban fruit bat seropositive for Ebola and Lagos bat viruses. PLoS ONE, 5 (8):

e11978. DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0011978.

Hays, T. 2007. Monkey meat at center of New-York City Court case. Washington Post, 24 November.

(Available at: www.wahsingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/24/AR2007112400782.html).

HERRERA HM, ABREU UGP, KEUROGHLIAN A, FREITAS TP, JANSEN A, (2008) The role played by

sympatric collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu), white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari), and feral pig (Sus scrofa)

as maintenance hosts for Trypanosoma evansi and Trypanosoma cruzi in a sylvatic area of Brazil,

104

Parasitological research, 103: 619 - 624

Hewlett, B.S., Amola, R.P. 2003. Cultural contexts of Ebola in Northern Uganda. Emerging Infectious

Diseases, 9 (10) : 1242 – 1248.

Hicks, T.C., Darby, L., Hart, J., Swinkels, J., Nick, J., Menken, S. 2010. Trade in orphans and bushmeat

threatens one of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s most important populations of Eastern chimpanzees

(Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). African Primates, 7 (1): 1 – 18.

Hilborn, R. & Walters, C.J. 2003. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment : choice, dynamics and uncertainty.

Kluwer Academic Publishers. 592 pp.

Hilborn, R., Arcese, P. & Borner, M. 2006. Effective enforcement in a conservation area. Science, 314: 1266.

Homewood, K. 2005. Rural resources, local livelihoods and poverty concepts. In : K. Homewood, ed. Rural

resources and local livelihoods in Africa, pp. 198-205. Oxford, James Currey.

Hotez, P.J., Kamath, A. 2009. Neglected tropical diseases in sub-Saharan Africa: review of their prevalence,

distribution, and disease burden. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 3 (8) : e412.

Hugh-Jones, M.E. & De Vos, V. 2002. Anthrax and Wildlife. Rev. sci. tech. OIE, 21: 359-383.

Hurst, A. 2004. Barren ground Caribou co-management in the Eastern Canadian Arctic : lessons for bushmeat

management. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, number 5.

Hutton, J.M., Dickson, B. 2000 Endangered species, threatened convention: the past, present and future of

CITES. Earthscan, London.

IFAW. 2008. Killing with keystrokes: wildlife trade on the internet. London, International Fund for Animal

Welfare.

Inamdar, A. Brown, D. and Cobb, S. 1999. What’s special about Wildlife management in forests ? Concepts

and models of rights-based managment, with recent evidence from West Central Africa. ODI Natural Resource

perspective, number 44.

IUCN .1999. Threats to forest protected areas – Summary of a survey of 10 countries carried out in

association with the World Commission on Protected Areas. Research report for the World Bank/WWF

Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. Gland, Switzerland.

Jackson, J.B.C, Kirby, M.X. Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford, L.W., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H.,

Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.M.,

Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J. & Warner, R.R. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent

collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293: 629 – 638.

105

Jambiya, G., Milledge, Milledge, S.A.H & Mtango, N. 2007. ‘Night Time Spinach’: conservation and

livelihood implications of wild meat use in refugee situations in north – western Tanzania. TRAFFIC

East/Southern Africa, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 60 pp.

Jenkins, R.K.B., Racey, P.A. 2008. Bats as bushmeat in Madagascar. Madagascar conservation and

development, 3 (1) : 22 – 30.

Jezek, Z., Arita, I., Mutombo, M., Dunn, C., Nakano, J.H., Szczeniowski, M. 1986. Four generations of

probable person-to-person transmission of human monkeypox. Am J Epidemiol., 123: 1004 – 12.

Johns, T. & Maundu, P. 2006. Forest Biodiversity, nutrition and population Health in market-oriented food

systems. Unasylva, 57 : 34-40.

Jori, F. & Noel, J.M. 1996. Guide pratique de l’élevage d’aulacodes au Gabon, Vétérinaires Sans Frontières,

Berthelot, Gabon.

Jori, F., Mensah, G.A., Adjanohoun, E. 1995. Grasscutter production: an example of rational exploitation of

Wildlife. Biodiversity and conservation, 4:257-265.

Kaeslin, E. & Williamson, D. 2010. Forests, people and wildlife: challenges for a common future. Unasylva,

236 (61) : 3 – 10.

Kalish, M.L., Wolfe, N.D., Ndongmo, C.B., McNicholl, J., Robbins, K.E., Aidoo, M., Fonjungo, P.N.,

Alemnji, G., Zeh, C., Djoko, C.F., Mpoudi-Ngole, E., Burke, D.S & Folks, T.M. 2005. Central African hunters

exposed to Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11 (12) : 1928 – 1930.

Karesh, W.B. & Noble, E.B.A. 2009. The bushmeat trade: increased opportunities for transmission of zoonotic

disease. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 76 : 429 – 434.

Keele, B.F., Van Heuverswyn, F., Li, Y., Bailes, E., Takehisa, J., Santiago, M.L., Bibollet-Ruche, F., Chen, Y.,

Wain, L.V., Liegeois, F., Loul, S., Mpoudi-Ngole, E., Bienvenue, Y., Delaporte, E., Brookfield, J.Y., Sharp,

P., Shaw, G.M, Peeters, M., Hahn, B.H. 2006. Chimpanzee reservoirs of pandemic and nonpandemic HIV-1.

Science, 313 (5786) : 523-526.

Knights, K. 2008. Who ate all the crocodiles? An investigation of trends and patterns in trade and consumption

of bushmeat in Gabon, MSc Conservation Science, Imperial College London, London.

Kock, R. 2003. What is this infamous “Wildlife/livestock disease interface?” A review of current knowledge on

the subject. IUCN 2003 World Parks Congress AHEAD Launch Forum, Abtsracts and multimedia.

Koppert, G.J.A., Dounias, E., Froment, A., Pasquet, P. 1996. Consommation alimentaire dans trois populations

forestières de la région côtière du Cameroun: Yassa, Mvae et Bakola. In: C.M. Hladik, A. Hladik, H. Pagezy,

106

O.F. Linares, G.J.A Koppert & A. Froment, eds. L'alimentation en forêt tropicale. Interactions bioculturel/es et

perspectives de développement, pp. 477-496. Paris, Unesco.

Kumpel, N.F., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Cowlishaw, G. & Rowcliffe, J.M. 2010b. Incentives for hunting : the role

of bushmeat in the household economy in rural Equatorial Guinea, Human Ecology 38 : 251 – 264.

Kumpel, N.F., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Cowlishaw, G. & Rowcliffe, J.M. 2010a. Assessing sustainability at

multiple scales in a rotational bushmeat hunting system. Conservation Biology, 24 (3) : 861 – 871.

Kuzmin, I.V., Bozick, B., Guagliardo, S.A., Kunkel, R., Shak, J.R., Tong, S. & Rupprecht, C.E. 2011. Bats,

emerging infectious diseases and the rabies paradigm revisited. Emerging Health Threats Journal, 4: 7159.

DOI: 10.3402/ehtj.v4i0.7159.

Lau, S.K., Woo, P.C., Li, K.S., Huang, Y., Tsoi, H.W., Wong, B.H., Wong, S.S., Leung, S.Y., Chan, K.H. &

Yuen, K.Y. 2005. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-like virus in Chinese horseshoe bats.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102(39):14040-14045.

Le Breton, M., Prosser, A.T., Tamoufe, U., Sateren, W., Mpoudi-Ngole, E., Diffo, J.L.D., Burke, D.S. &

Wolfe, N.D. 2006. Patterns of bushmeat hunting and perceptions of disease risk among central African

communities. Animal Conservation, 9, 357 – 363.

Le Guenno, B., Formentry, P., Wyers, M., Gounon, P., Walker, F. & Boesch, C. 1995. Isolation and partial

characterization of a new strain of Ebola virus. The lancet, 345: 1271 – 1274.

Lecoq, Y. 1997. A European perspective on wild game meat and public Health. Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,

16(2), 579-585.

Leendertz, F.H., Ellerbrok, H., Boesch, C., Couacy-Hymann, E., Mätz-Rensing, K., Hakenbeck, R., Bergmann,

C., Abaza, P., Junglen, S., Moebius, Y., Vigilant, L., Formenty, P. & Pauli, G. 2004. Anthrax kills wild

chimpanzees in a tropical rainforest. Nature, 430 : 451 – 452. DOI:10.1038/nature02722.

Leroy, E.M., Epelboin, A., Mondonge, V. & Pourrut, X. 2009. Human Ebola outbreak resulting from direct

exposure to fruit bats in Luebo, Democratic Republic of Congo. Vector-Borne and zoonotic diseases, 9

(6) :723-728.

Leroy, E.M., Rouquet, P., Formenty P., Souquiere, S., Kilbourne, A., Froment, J.M., Bermejo, M., Smit, S.,

Karesh, W., Swanepoel, R., Zaki, S.R. & Rollin, P.E. 2004. Multiple Ebola Virus transmission events and rapid

decline of Central African Wildlife. Science, 303, 387 – 390.

Li, W., Shi, Z., Yu, M., Ren, W., Smith, C., Epstein, J.H., Wang, H., Crameri, G., Hu, Z., Zhang, H., Zhang, J.,

McEachern, J., Field, H., Daszak, P., Eaton, B.T., Zhang, S. & Wang, L.F. 2005. Bats are natural reservoirs of

SARS-like coronaviruses. Science, 310(5748):676-679.

107

Little, D.C. & Edwards, P. 2003. Integrated livestock-fish farming systems. Inland water resources and

aquaculture service and Animal Production Service, FAO, Rome. 33 pp.

Mahamane, L.E., Montagne, P., Bertrand, A. & Gabin, D. 1995. La création de nouveaux communs comme

outils de développement rural local : l’exemple des marchés ruraux de bois-énergie au Niger. 5th Annual

Common Property Conference « Reinventing the Commons ». ASCP, Bobo Dioulasso.

McCullough, D.R. 1996. Spatially structured populations and harvest theory. J. Wildl. Manage, 60 (1) : 1 – 9.

McCusker, R. 2006. Transnational crime in the Pacific Islands: real or apparent danger? Trends and Issues in

crime and criminal justice, Australian Government and Australian Institute of Criminology, 308. 6 pp.

McEwing, R. & Ogden, R. 2006. Imported bushmeat – species identification using DNA typing. Defra project

WC05011, Wildlife DNA services Ltd, University of Wales, Bangor.

McKenzie, A.I., Hathaway, S.C. 2006. The role and functionality of Veterinary Services in food safety

throughout the food chain. Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 25 (2) : 837 – 848.

Milner-Gulland, E.J., Akcakaya, H.R. 2001. Sustainability indices for exploited populations. Trends in Ecology

and Evolution, 16: 686 – 692.

Milner-Gulland, E.J., Bennett, E.L. & the SCB. 2002. Annual Meeting Wild Meat Group. 2003. Wild meat: the

bigger picture. Trends Ecology Evolution, 18 (7):351-357.

Mindell, D.P. 1996. Positive selection and rates of evolution in immunodeficiency viruses from humans and

chimpanzés. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93: 3284 – 3288.

Monroe, M.C. & Willcox, A.S. 2006. Could risk of disease change bushmeat butchering behavior? Animal

Conservation, 9 : 368-369.

Morell, V. 1995. Chimpanzee outbreak heats up search for Ebola origin. Science, 268: 974 – 975.

Morner, T., Fischer, J.R. 2001. Hunting and fishing : value of wildlife and Benefit for disease surveillance. In :

OIE Global Conference on Wildlife – Animal Health and Biodiversity – Preparing for the Future Proceedings,

p.19. Paris, 23 – 25 February 2011.

Müller, K.E. & Ritz-Müller, U. 2000. Afrique : la magie dans l’âme. Rites, charmes et sorcellerie. Könemann

Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Cologne, 503 pp.

NAO. 2005. Stopping illegal imports of animal products into Great Britain. Report by the comptroller abd

auditor general, HC 365 Session 2004-2005. 46 pp.

108

Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., Van Tol, G. & Christophersen, T. 2008. Conservation

and use of wildlife-based resources : the bushmeat crisis. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological

Diversity, Montreal, and Center for International Forestry Resaerch (CIFOR), Bogor. Technical Serie no. 33,

50 pp.

Newman, S. 2010. Bushmeat consumption, wildlife trade and global public health risks. FAO EMPRES

(Available at : http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/empres/news_151010.htlm).

Ng Chi-Yan. 2005. A comparative study of the wildlife trade in Southern China and the bushmeat trade in

Africa. Environmental Management : Theses. University of Hong Kong.

Noss, A. 2000. Cable nets and snares in the Central African Republic. In: J.G. Robinson & E.L. Bennet, eds.

Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests, pp. 282-304. New York, Columbia university Press. 1000 pp.

Nout, M.J.R. 1994. Fermented foods and food safety. Food Res. Int., 27: 291-298.

O’Brien, L. 2006. Strengthening heart and mind : using woodlands to improve mental and Physical well-being.

In : Forests and human Health, pp. 56-61. FAO, Rome.

Ogden, R. & McEwing, R. 2008. Adaptation of DNA analysis techniques for the identification of illegally

imported bushmeat for use on the Agilent 2100 bioanalyser. Final Technical report for Food Standards Agency

United Kingdom, Project Q01109.

Ottaviani, D. & El-Hage Scialabba, N. 2011. Payments for ecosystem services and food security. FAO

publication. 300 pp.

Parry, L., Barlow, J. & Peres, C. 2009. Hunting for sustainability in tropical secondary forests. Conservation

Biology, 23 (5) :1270-1280.

Pastoret, P.P., Bennett, M., Brochier, B., Akakpo, A.J. 2000. Animals, public health, and the example of cowpox. Rev. sci. tech. OIE, 19 (1), 23 – 32.

Peeters, M., Courgnaud, V., Abela, B., Auzel, P., Pourrut, X., Bibollet-Ruche, F., Loul, S., Liegeois, F., Butel,

C., Koulagna, D., Mpoudi-Ngole, E., Shaw, G.M., Hahn, B.H. & Delaporte, E. 2002. Risk to Human health

from a plethora of Simian Immunodeficiency viruses in primate bushmeat. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 8

(5) : 451 – 457.

Picow, M. 2011. Thai migrant workers poach wildlife for food in Israel. The green prophet (Available at:

http://www.greenprophet.com/2011/06/hunting-thai-food-israel/).

Poulsen, J. R., Clark, C. J., Mavah, G. & Elkan, W. 2009. Bushmeat supply and consumption in a tropical

logging concession in Northern Congo. Conservation Biology, 23 (6) : 1597 – 1608.

109

Pourut, X., Diffo, J.L.D, Somo, R.M, Bilong Bilong, C.F, Delaporte, E., Lebreton, M. & Gonzales, J.P. 2010.

Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in primate bushmeat and pets in Cameroun. Veterinary parasitology,

175: 187-191.

Purlain, T. 2011. Potentially anthrax tainted meat found for sale in the UK. BioPrepWatch.com (Available at).

Raikes, P., Jensen, M.F., Ponte, S. 2000. Global commodity chain analysis and the French filiere approach:

comparison and critique. Economy and Society, 29: 390 – 417.

Rands, R.W, Adams, W.M, Bennum, L. & Butchart, S.A.M. 2010. Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges

beyond 2010. Science, 329: 1298 – 1303.

Rao, M., McGowan, P.J.K. 2002. Wild meat use, food security, livelihoods and conservation. Conservation

Biology, 16 (3) : 580 – 583.

Ravindran, S. 2008. Love for bushmeat: India’s rare species at risk. In : OneWorld South Asia (available at :

http://archive.oneworld.net/article/view/159631).

Rist, J., Milner-Gulland, E.J, Cowlishow, G. & Rowcliffe, M. 2009. Hunter reporting of catch per unit effort as

a monitoring tool in a bushmeat-harvesting system. Conservation Biology, 24 (2) : 489-499.

Rivalan, P. 2007. Can bans stimulate wildlife trade? Nature, 447 (31): 529 – 530.

Robinson, J.G. & Bennett, E.L. 1999. Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. New York, Columbia

University Press.

Robinson, J.G. & Bennett, E.L. 2002. Will alleviating poverty solve the bushmeat crisis ? Oryx, 36 (4) : 332.

Robinson, J.G. & Bennett, E.L. 2004. Having your wildlife and eating it too: an analysis of hunting

sustainability across tropical ecosystems. Animal Conservation, 7: 397 – 408.

Robinson, J.G. & Redford, K.H. 1991. Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.

Robson, J.M., Harrison, M.W., Wood, R.N., Tilse, M.H., Mckaye, A.B. & Brodribb, T.R. 1993. Brucellosis: reemergence and changing epidemiology in Queensland. Med. J. Aust., 159, 153–158.

Rönn, A.C., Andrés, O., Lopez-Giraldez, F., Johnsson-Glans, C., Verschoor, E.J., Domingo-Roura, X., Brufor,

M.W., Syvänen, A.C. & Bosch, M. 2009. First generation microarray-system for identification of primate

Species subject to bushmeat trade. Endangered Species Research, 9 : 133-142.

Rose, A.L. 1996. Orangutans, science and collective reality. In : R. Nadler, B. Galdikas, L. Sheeran & N.

Rosen, eds. The neglected Ape, pp. 29-40. Plenum Press, New York.

110

Rose, A.L. 1998. Conservation becomes a global social movement in the era of bushmeat and primate kinship.

Unpublished article, 18 pages, Bushmeat project website (Available at : http://biosynergy.org/bushmeat/).

Rose, A.L. 2000. Conservation must pursue human-nature biosynergy in the era of social chaos and bushmeat

commerce. In. : A. Fuentes & L.D. Wolfe, eds. Conservation Implications of Human and Nonhuman Primate

Interconnections. Cambridge University Press, In Press.

Rose, A.L. 2001. Social change and social values in mitigating bushmeat commerce. In : Bakarr, Fonseca,

Mittermeir, Rylands & Walker, eds. Hunting and Bushmeat Utilization in the African Rain Forest, pp. 59-74.

Washington, DC, Conservation International.

Rossi, L., Pozio, E., Mignone, W., Ercolini, C., Dini, V. 1992. Epidemiology of sylvatic trichinellosis on north-

western Italy. Rev. sci. tech. OIE, 11 (4): 1039 – 1046.

Rowcliffe, J.M., De Merode, E. & Cowlishaw, G. 2004. Do wildlife laws work? Species protection and the

application of a prey choice model to poaching decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B,

271: 2631 – 2636.

Rowcliffe, J.M., Milner-Gulland, E.J. & Cowlishaw, G. 2005. Do bushmeat consumers have other fish to fry ?

Trends in ecology and evolution, 20 (6) : 274-276.

Ruel, M.T., Minot, N. & Smith, L. 2005. Patterns and determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption in sub-

Saharan Africa: a multicountry comparison. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization. 45 pp.

Rushton, J., Viscarra, R., Viscarra, C., Basset, F., Baptista, R & Brown, D. 2005. How important is bushmeat

consumption in South America: now and in the future? ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, number 11.

Rushton, J., Viscarra, R., Viscarra, C., Basset, F., Baptista, R., Huallata, R. & Brown, D. 2004. Captive

breeding of wild Species : a sceptical view of the prospects. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, number 9.

Schellenberg, R.S., Tan, B.J.K, Irvine, J.D., Stockdale, D.R., Gajadhar, A.A., Serhir, B., Botha, J., Armstrong,

C.A., Woods, S.A., Blondeau, J.M & McNabl, T.L. 2003. An outbreak of trichinellosis due to consumption of

bear meat infected with Trichinella nativa, in 2 northern Saskatchewan Communities. JID, 188 : 835 – 843.

Schnellhard, H. 2008. Game meat and other “Countryside” Issues. FACE Annual Report, 30 – 32.

Schreckenberg, K., Luttrell, C. & Moss, C. 2006. Participatory forest management : an overview. ODI. 7 pp.

Solly, H. 2004. Bushmeat hunters and secondary traders : making the distinction for livelihood imporvement.

ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, number 8.

Songorwa, A.N. 1999. Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: are the communities

111

interested? World Development, 27(12) : 2061 – 2079.

Starkey, M. 2004. Commerce and subsistence: the hunting, sale and consumption of bushmeat in Gabon. PhD

thesis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United – Kingdom.

Stebbins. M.W, Hawley, J.A & Rose, A.L. 1982. Long-term action Research : the most effective way to

improve complex Health care organizations. In : N. Margulies & J. Adams, eds. Organization development in

Health care organization, pp. 105-136. Reading, MA : Addison Wesley.

Suarez, E., Morales, M., Cueva, R., Utreras, B., Zapats Rios, G., Toral, E., Torres, J., Prado, W. & Vargas

Ollaja, J. 2009. Oil industry, wild meat trade and roads: indirect effects of oil extraction activities in a protected

area in north-eastern Ecuador. Animal Conservation, 12: 364 – 373.

Switzer, W. M., Bhullar, V., Shanmugam, V., Cong, M.-e., Parekh, B., Lerche, N. W., Yee, J. L., Ely, J. J.,

Boneva, R., Chapman, L. E., Folks, T. M. & Heneine, W. 2004. Frequent Simian Foamy Virus Infection in

Persons Occupationally Exposed to Nonhuman Primates. J. Virol. 78: 2780-2789.

Switzer, W.M., Salemi, M., Shanmugam, V., Gao, F., Cong, M.E., …Kuiken, C., Bhullar, V., Beer, B.E.

Vallet, D., Gautier-Hion, A., Tooze, Z., Villinger, F., Holmes, E.C., Heneine, W. 2005. Ancient co-speciation

of simian foamy viruses and primates. Nature, 434 (7031) : 376 – 380.

Tang, X.C., Zhang, J.X, Zhang, S.Y., Wang, P., Fan, X.H., Li, F.H., Li, G., Dong, B.Q., Liu, W., Cheung, C.L.,

Xu, K.M., Song, W.J., Vijaykrishna, D., Poon, L.L.M., Peiris, J.S.M., Smith, G.J.D, Chen, H. & Guan, Y.

2006. Prevalence and genetic diversity of coronaviruses in bats from China. Journal of virology, 80 (15) : 7481

– 7490.

TED Ideas Worth Spreading. 2009. Nathan Wolfe's jungle search for viruses. Filmed February 2009, Posted

March 2009 (available at : http://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_wolfe_hunts_for_the_next_aids.html).

Terborgh, J. & Estes, J.A. 2010. Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature. Island Press, first édition. 488 pp.

TRAFFIC. 2010a. Development of a Central African Bushmeat Monitoring System : SYVBAC (Available at

www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/.../lgbushmeat.../lgbushmeat-02-factsheet-en.pdf). Viewed on 20 September 2011.

TRAFFIC. 2010b. Landmark for EU-TWIX (Available at : http://www.traffic.org/home/2010/5/17/landmark-

for-eu-twix.html).

Travis, D.A., Hungerford, L., Engel, G.A. & Jones-Engel, L. 2006. Disease risk analysis: a tool for primate

conservation planning and decision making. American Journal of Primatology, 68: 855 – 867.

Travis, D.A., Watson, R.P. & Tauer, A. 2011. The spread of pathogens through trade in Wildlife. Rev. sci. tech.

Off. Int. Epiz., 30 (1), 219 – 239.

112

Tu, C., Crameri, G., Kong, X., Chen, J., Sun, Y., Yu, M., Xiang, H., Xia, X., Liu, S., Ren, T., Yu, Y., Eaton,

B.T., Xuan, H. & Wang, L.F. 2004. Antibodies to SARS coronavirus in civets. Emerging Infectious Diseases,

10: 2244 – 2248.

UK Bushmeat Working Group. 2011. Meeting on monitoring of illegal imports from Africa to Europe. Meeting

report, 20th January 2011, Zoological Society of London, London.

UNAIDS. 2009. AIDS Epidemic update : November 2009. WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data,

UNAIDS/09.36E / JC1700E.

UNHCR. 2005. Handbook on Livestock keeping and animal husbandry in refugee and returnee situations – A

practical handbook for improved management. 81 pp.

United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and change. 2004. A more secure world: our shared

responsibility. United Nations, New York (Available at : http://www.un.org/secureworld/report2.pdf).

United Nations. 2001. Report of the panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other

forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo. United Nations, New York. 25 pp.

Van Vliet, N. & Nasi, R. 2008. Hunting for livelihood in northeast Gabon: patterns, evolution, and

sustainability. Ecology and Society, 13:33.

Van Vliet, N., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Bousquet, F, Saqalli, M. & Nasi, R. 2010. Effect of small – scale

heterogeneity of prey and hunter distributions on the sustainability of bushmeat hunting. Conservation Biology,

24 (5) : 1327 – 1337.

Van Vliet, N., Nebesse, C. & Nasi, R. 2010. Dynamics of bushmeat trade in the market of Kisangani, DRC.

XXIII IUFRO Congress, 23rd – 28th of August 2010, Seoul, South Korea.

Vantomme, P., Göhler, D. & N’Deckere-Ziangba, F. 2004. Contribution of forest insects to food security and

forest conservation : the example of caterpillars in Central Africa. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, 3, January

2004.

Vijaykrishna, D., Tang, X.C., Gao, F., Li, L. F., Li, G. J., Zhang, J. X., Yang, L. Q., Poon, L. L. M., Zhang,

S.Y., Peiris, J. S. M., Smith, G. J. D., Chen, H. & Guan Y. 2007. Detection of a novel and highly divergent

coronavirus from Asian leopard cats and Chinese ferret badgers in Southern China. Journal of Virology, 81

(13) : 6920 – 6926.

Walsh, P.D., Abernethy, K.A., Bermejo, M., Beyerk, R., De Wachter, P., Akou, M.E, Huijbregts, B.,

Mambounga, D.I., Kamdem Toham, A., Kilbournk, A.M., Lahmq, S.A., Latourk, S., Maiselsk, F., Mbinak, C.,

Mihindouk, Y., Ndong Obiang, S., Ntsame Effa, E., Starkeyk, M., Telfer, P., Thibault, M., Tutin, C.E.J.,

Whitek, L.J.T & Wilkiek, D.S. 2003. Catastrophic ape decline in western equatorial Africa. Nature, 422: 611 –

614.

113

Wang, L, Eaton, B. 2007. Bats, civets and the emergence of SARS. Wildlife and emerging zoonotic diseases:

the biology, circumstances and consequences of cross – species transmission. Current topics in microbiology

and immunology. 315: 325-344.

Wang, L.-F., Shi, Z., Zhang, S., Field, H., Daszak, P. & Eaton, B.T. 2006. Review of bats and SARS. Emerging

Infectious Diseases, 12 (12) :1834 – 1840.

Watson, I. & Brashares, J. 2004. The bushmeat trade and fishing licence agreements in West Africa. ODI

Wildlife Policy Briefing, number 4.

WCED. 1987. Our Common Future: report on the World Commission on Environment and Development.

Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WCS. 2000. Links between Biodiversity conservation, livelihoods and food security: the sustainable use of

wild species for meat. Amman, Jordan.

WHO. 1997. WHO recommended guidelines for epidemic preparedness and response: Ebola Hemorrhagic

Fever (EHF). Geneva, Switzerland, WHO, Division of emerging and other communicable diseases.

WHO. 2008. The global burden of disease: 2004 update. Geneva, Switzerland, WHO Press.

Wilkie, D.S. & Carpenter, J. 1999a. Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: an assessment of impacts and

options for mitigation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8: 927 – 955.

Wilkie, D.S. & Carpenter, J. 1999b. Can nature tourism help finance protected areas in the Congo Basin ?

Oryx, 33 (4) : 333-339.

Wilkie, D.S. & Godoy, R. 2001. Income and price elasticities of bushmeat demand in lowland Amerindian

societies. Conservation Biology, 15 (3) : 761 – 769.

Wilkie, D.S., Starkey, M., Abernethy, K., Nstame Effa, E., Telfer, P. & Godoy, R. 2005. Role of prices and

wealth in consumer demand for bushmeat in Gabon, Central Africa. Conservation Biology, 19, 268 – 274.

Wilkie. 2006. Bushmeat : a disease risk worth taking to put food on the table ? Animal Conservation, 9 : 370-

37.

Wolfe, N.D., Daszak, P., Kilpatrick, M.A., Burke, D.S. 2005a. Bushmeat hunting, deforestation, and prediction

of zoonotic disease émergence. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11 (12) : 1822 – 1827.

Wolfe, N.D., Escalante, A.A, Karesh, W.B, Kilbourn, A., Spielman, A. & Lal, A.A. 1998. Wild primate

populations in emerging infectious disease research: the missing link? Emerging Infectious Diseases, 4 (2) :

149 – 158.

114

Wolfe, N.D., Heneine, W. & Carr, J.K. 2005b. Emergence of unique primate T-lymphotropic viruses among

central African bushmeat hunters. PNAS, 102 (22) : 7994 – 7999.

Wolfe, N.D., Ngole Eiten, M., Gockowski, J., Muchaal, P.K., Nolte, C., Tassy Prosser, A., Ndongo – Torimiro,

J., Weise, S.F. & Burke, D.S. 2000. Deforestation, hunting and the ecology of microbial émergence. Global

change and human health, 1 (1). Doi: 10.1023/A:1011519513354.

Wolfe, N.D., Panosian Dunavan, C., Diamond, J. 2007. Origins of major human infectious diseases. Nature,

447 (17) : 279-283.

Wolfe, N.D., Prosser, A.T., Carr, J.K., Tamoufe, U., Mpoudi-Ngole, E., Ndongo Torimiro, J., LeBreton, M.,

McCutchan, F.E., Birx, D.L. & Burke, D.S. 2004. Exposure to nonhuman primates in rural Cameroun.

Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10 (12) : 2094 – 2099.

Wolfe, N.D., Switzer, W.M., Carr, J.K. 2004. Naturally acquired simian retrovirus infections in Central African

hunters. The Lancet, 363 : 932 – 937.

Woolhouse, M.E. 2002. Population biology of emerging and re-emerging pathogens. Trends Microbiology, 10

(10), s3-s7.

Xu, R.H., He, J.F., Evans, M.R., Peng, G.W., Field, H.E., Yu, D.W., Lee, C.K., Luo, H.M., Lin, W.S., Lin, P.,

Li, L.H., Liang, W.J., Lin, J.Y. & Schnur, A. 2004. Epidemiologic clues to SARS origin in China. Emerging

Infectious Diseases, 10 (6) : 1030 – 1037.

Young, H. 1992. Food scarcity and famine: assessment and response. Oxfam practical health guide n°7.

London, Oxfam Publications.

Zapkaa, H.D, Imbeah, C.M., Mak-Mensah E.E, 2009. Microbial characterization of fermented meat products

on some selected markets in the Kumasi metropolis, Ghana. African Journal of Food Science, 3 (11) : 340 –

346.

Zimmerman, M. 2003. The black market for wildlife: combating transnational organised crime in the illegal

wildlife trade. Wildlife trade as organised crime. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 36: 1657-1689.

115

List of key websites consulted

Global Viral Forecasting Initiative http://www.gvfi.org/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United –

Nations (FAO)

http://www.fao.org

CBD Liaison Group Meeting on Bushmeat http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=LGB-01

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) http://www.odi.org.uk/

CITES http://www.cites.org/

HUNTing for Sustainability http://fp7hunt.net/

One Health http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/

Bushmeat Crisis Taskforce http://www.bushmeat.org/

116

Glossary

Acholi people An ethnic group from the districts of Agago, Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum, Nwoya,

Lamwo, and Pader in Northern Uganda (an area commonly referred to as

Acholiland), and Magwe County in South Sudan.

Adaptative strategy Entails a long-term and often permanent change in a mixture of productive

activities and evolving processes that will typically require a community and

institutional changes in order to meet livelihoods requirements.

Animal product Any product containing meat, dairy, fish, shellfish, egg or honey.

Anthropology The study of humanity.

Biltong - Jerky Biltong is made from strips of dried, salted meat, which are dark brown with a salty

taste and a flexible, rubbery texture. Cattle, camels or wild game are the most

commonly used meat for biltong. Fresh, lean meat is cut into long thin strips and

hung in a dry hot airy place where dust and insects cannot spoil it. Evenly spaced

strips are hung on a string suspended in a well-ventilated, dust-free area and left

to hang for five to seven days. As the meat dries is darkens and becomes a fairly

hard but nutritious product that can be stored for long periods of time. Some

processes involve soaking the meat in vinegar and herbs, or adding spices, to soften

it, increase its shelf life and add flavor.

Biosynergy The collaborative and mutually beneficial interaction of all living elements within

regional ecosystems, which leads to individual, social, and ecological stability,

longevity, and enrichment.

Bushmeat Term referring to the use of wild animals, ranging from cane rats to gorillas, for

food. Typically refers to the practice in the forests of Africa.

Canned hunt Hunt during which hunters pay large amounts of money to have the opportunity to

hunt and kill an exotic animal (essentially a trophy hunt).

117

Capacity Building The objective of building national capacity in any domain is to empower countries

to meet their own needs autonomously. It is far more than just technical ability but

also requires supportive legislation and policies, functional organization and

appropriate governance, and must be affordable and sustained by the country in the

long term.

Catch Per Unit

Effort (CPUE)

Rather than analyzing and reporting data as actual number of fish caught, fisheries

data are typically reported as CPUE. Because sampling effort may differ from area

to area, month-to-month or year-to-year, the number of fish captured must be

analyzed in such a way as to standardize the effort that was exerted. CPUE

standardizes catch data based on the amount of the effort (total time or area

sampled) exerted.

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES). Provides an international legal framework to regulate trading of animal

and plant species and derived products (including some trophy hunting and ivory

trade).

Clearcutting A controversial forestry/logging practice in which most or all trees in an area are

uniformly cut down.

Animal commodity Live animals, products of animal origin, animal genetic material, biological

products and pathological material (means samples obtained from live or dead

animals, containing or suspected of containing infectious or parasitic agents, to be

sent to a laboratory.

Commodity chain The ensemble of interlinked exchanges through which a product passes from the

point it is harvested until it is traded and finally consumed.

Coping strategy Poor people’s responses to declining food availability in abnormal seasons or year.

Emerging

Infectious Diseases

(EIDs)

Diseases that have recently increased in incidence or geographic range, recently

moved into new host populations, recently been discovered or area caused by new-

evolved pathogens.

118

Emerging

Infectious Diseases

(EZDs)

An emerging zoonosis is defined as “a pathogen that is newly recognized or newly

evolved, or that has occurred previously but shows an increase in incidence or

expansion in geographical, host or vector range” (WHO, 2004).

Fang The Fang form an individual ethnic group within the The Beti-Pahuin. The latter

are a group of related peoples who inhabit the rain forest regions of Cameroon,

Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and São Tomé and Príncipe.

Farmed game Wild mammals and wild birds bred and kept in captivity and slaughtered in a

slaughterhouse.

Fishing License

Agreements (FLA)

Legal agreements, which allow vessels of one country to fish in the territorial

waters of another country.

Food safety Scientific discipline describing handling, preparation and storage of food in ways

that prevent foodborne illness. This includes a number of routines that should be

followed to avoid potentially severe health hazards. Food can transmit disease from

person to person as well as serve as a growth medium for bacteria that can cause

food poisoning. In theory, food poisoning is 100% preventable.

Food security “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic

access to sufficient, safe and nutrious food that meets their dietary needs and food

preferences for an active and healthy life” (World Food Summit, 1996).

HealthMap.org A real - time, open – access map that tracks emerging infectious diseases moving

between wildlife and people.

Household A family group living together in one or more neighbouring dwellings and eating

from a communal plot.

Income Can be defined in terms of short-term cash flow, or current household production.

Inferior goods Inferior animals are those whose consumption falls when income rise.

Informal economy The wider economy outside normal state regulation.

119

Keystone species “Ecosystem engineers”, or “organisms with high community importance value” are

species or groups whose loss is expected to have a disproportionate impact on the

ecosystem compared to the loss of other species.

Livelihood A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of

living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses

and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while

not undermining the natural resource base.

National Strategy

for Growth and

Reduction of

Poverty (NSGRP)

A national organizing framework for putting the focus on poverty reduction high on

the country’s development agenda.

Natural

fermentation

Fermentation without inoculation with microorganisms under controlled conditions.

Necessities Necessity animals are species whose consumption increases by 1% for every

percent increase in income.

Non Human

Primates (NHP)

Designs any species of the order of primates not belonging to the genus Homo.

Normal goods Goods with a positive income elasticity of consumption and include necessities and

superior goods.

Office

International des

Epizooties

(OIE)

An intergovernmental organization whose membership at March 2004 totaled

167 countries. Each member country undertakes to report the animal diseases it

detects on its territory. The OIE then disseminates this information to other

countries, which can take the necessary preventive action. Information is sent out

immediately or periodically depending on the seriousness of the disease.

One Health Approach recognizing that human health (including mental health via the human-

animal bond phenomenon), animal health, and ecosystem health are inextricably

linked, One Health seeks to promote, improve, and defend the health and well-

being of all species by enhancing cooperation and collaboration between

120

physicians, veterinarians, other scientific health and environmental professionals

and by promoting strengths in leadership and management to achieve these goals.

Position paper A position paper is an essay that presents an opinion about an issue, typically that

of a specified entity. It enables discussion on emerging topics without the

experimentation and original research normally present in an academic paper.

Commonly, such a document will substantiate the opinions or positions put forward

with evidence from an extensive objective discussion of the topic.

Poverty Common definitions are based on monetary (such as per-capita income) and

nonmonetary (such as health or mortality) criteria.

PREDICT A global early warning system created in 2009 to anticipate and prevent emerging

infectious diseases through identification of possible pathogenic threats as part of

the USAID’s Emerging Pandemics Threats Program.

Primary Forest An old-growth forest (also termed primary forest, virgin forest, primeval forest, late

seral forest, or in Britain, ancient woodland) is a forest that has attained great age

(and associated structural features), and thereby exhibits unique ecological features.

Reservoir One or more epidemiological connected populations or environments in which the

pathogen can be permanently maintained and from which infection is transmitted to

the defined target population (HAYDON D T and al., 2002)

Retrovirus Any of a group of viruses, many of which produce tumours, that contain RNA and

reverse transcriptase, including the virus that causes AIDS.

Risk analysis A science-based process that is an organized and logical approach to identifying

and using scientific information to support policy-making in the real world.

Secondary Forest A secondary forest (or second-growth forest) is a forest or woodland area which has

re-grown after a major disturbance such as fire, insect infestation, timber harvest or

windthrow, until a long enough period has passed so that the effects of the

disturbance are no longer evident. It is distinguished from an old-growth forest

(primary or primeval forest), which have not undergone such disruptions, as well as

121

third-growth forests that result from severe disruptions in second growth forests.

Selective logging Cutting trees with the highest value and leaving those with lower value, often

diseased or malformed trees, is referred to as high grading. It is sometimes called

selective logging, and confused with selection cutting, the practice of managing

stands by harvesting a proportion of trees.

Shikaar Hunting for social valorisation.

Smoked meat Joints of meat can also be preserved very effectively by smoking them, suspending

them in special containers that produce wood-smoke from sawdust from selected

trees. The smoke works by partially drying the meat and sealing its surface from

further oxygen penetration.

Social science

Social science is the field of scholarship that studies society. "Social science" is

commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a plurality of fields outside of the

natural sciences. These include: anthropology, archaeology, business

administration, communication, criminology, economics, education, government,

linguistics, international relations, political science, sociology and, in some

contexts, geography, history, law, and psychology.

Sociology Study of society.

Superior/luxury

goods

Superior animals are species whose consumption increases by 1% for every

percent increase in income.

Sustainable diet Those diets with low environmental impacts, which contribute to food and nutrition

security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are

protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable,

accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and

healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources.

Sustainable

livelihood

A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and

maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not

undermining the natural resource base.

TRAFFIC – the An NGO working to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to

122

wildlife trade

monitoring

network

the conservation of nature. It has offices covering most parts of the world and

works in close cooperation with the Secretariat of the Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Tragedy of the

commons

The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which

multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-

interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that

it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. This dilemma was first

described in an influential article titled "The Tragedy of the Commons", written by

ecologist Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.

Transnational

crime

Crime that have actual or potential effect across national borders and crimes which

are intra-state but which offend fundamental values of the international community.

Vaid Vaid is a Brahmin clan from the Punjab, one of the seven clans of the Mohyals. The

words Vaid and Rajvaid are particularly used to denote medical professionals in

Indian history.

Viral chatter A seemingly common phenomenon of repeated transmission of non human viruses

to humans, most of which results in no human-to-human transmission.

Wealth Difficult to measure, incorporating social, political and economic dimensions and

referring to the long-term ability of a household to bear shocks. Wealth is distinct

from income, which can be defined in terms of short-term cash flow, or current

household production.

Wet markets In Asia, wet markets are very popular, they are open food markets and have

traditionally been associated with a place that sells live animals out in the open; the

collection may include domesticate and wild animals; depending on the regions,

they are usually caged and killed for live preparation. The traditional rationale for a

wet market in hot climates was that the purchase of a live animal just prior to the

time that it was to be eaten was the only way to ensure that it had not spoilt. For

some customers, it is important to see the animal live before being sold, then either

take it home or it killed and cleaned. The slaughter and butchering has historically

been performed in front of customers upon request. If sanitation standards are not

maintain, wet markets can easily spread diseases. Newly introduced animals may

123

come in direct contact with sales clerks, butchers and customers.

Wild animals “Any animal not kept by humans”, European – Commission.

Wildlife farming

and ranching

Traditional views about wildlife farming and ranching often include images of large

game species being raised for hunting. However, wildlife producers today are

raising everything from buffalo to baitfish and bees to butterflies. These animals

may be native (they are found naturally in the area) or exotic (they are not found

naturally in the area). Producers raise wildlife for a variety of products, services,

and markets. Some of these include meat and other products (such as fur), and stock

for zoos, hunting preserves, private collectors, research programs, and restocking or

enhancing of natural populations.

Wild game “Wild animals and wild birds shot in their environment” European – Commission.

Wild swine The term “wild swine” embraces in our report feral and wild boar/pig. Throughout

the world, we find a range of free-living swine: wild boar (Sus scrofa), warthog

(Phacochoerus aethiopicus), bush pig (Potamochoerus procus). The peccaries of the

Americas: collared peccary (Tayassu takacu) and white-lipped peccary (Tayassu

albirostris), while of similar appearance to swine, belong to a different family.

Wildlife “…Any wild animal, whether alive or dead, including any wild mammal, bird,

reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk (i.e., clam, snail, squid, octopus), crustacean (i.e.,

crab, lobster, crayfish), insects, sponges, corals, or other invertebrate, whether or

not bread, hatched, or born in captivity, and including any part, product (including

manufactured products and processed food products), egg, or offspring”, United

States Fish and Wildlife Service.

World

Conservation

Society (WCS)

The Wildlife Conservation Society saves wildlife and wild lands through careful

science, international conservation, education, and the management of the world’s

largest system of urban wildlife parks. These activities change attitudes toward

nature and help people imagine wildlife and humans living in sustainable

interaction on both a local and a global scale. WCS is committed to this work

because we believe it essential to the integrity of life on Earth.

Zoonoses Infectious diseases that have been transmitted from animals to humans.

124

List of Annexes

Annex 1 Extracts from the reports of FAO Regional Conference for Africa p. 124

Annex 2 List of FAO contacts across Departments involved in discussions on the wild meat issue - Building an internal transversal network

p. 125

Annex 3 FAO Headquarter Organigramme p. 128

Annex 4 FAO Wild Meat Workshop Agenda and Abstract, 26th of October

2011

p. 129

Annex 5 FAO Wild Meat Workshop confirmed List of attendees, 26th of

October 2011

p. 131

Annex 6 Matrix of approaches to wildlife p. 133

Annex 7 Spotting successful partnerships so far p. 134

Annex 8 Lessons from co-management of caribou herds in the Canadian

Arctic

p. 136

Annex 9 FAO/GEF programme goals on Sustainable Management of the

Wildlife and Bushmeat Sector in Central Africa

p. 137

Annex 10 FAO Mandate, Strategic Objectives and Core functions p. 138

Annex 11 The Millennium Development Goals p. 139

Annex 12 FAO Wild Meat Workshop Presentation on “The sustainable use of

wild meat: a transversal issue for FAO”, 26th of October 2011

p. 140

Annex 13 Supporting research on wild meat and sustainability p. 143

125

Annexe 1 - Extracts from the reports of FAO Regional Conference for Africa

Extract from the report of the twenty-first FAO Regional Conference for Africa – Yaoundé, Cameroun, 21-25 February 2000, p. 11-13: “COUNTRY STATEMENTS AND GENERAL DEBATE 25. The Conference was also pleased to note that another Consultation, held in conjunction with the 21st FAO Regional Conference on 21 to 22 February 2000, brought together representatives of farmers' organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations from the region to reflect on issues of food security and to formulate a joint Action Plan in the context of FAO's new policy and strategy for co-operation with civil society organisations. In particular, the Conference: The Conference: j. recommended that FAO intensify support to non-conventional food products, especially bushmeat and non-wood forest products.” Extract from the report of the twenty-third FAO Regional Conference for Africa – Johannesburg, South Africa, 1-5 March 2004, p. 77-78: “The Bushmeat Crisis in Africa: Conciliating Food Security and Biodiversity Conservation (ARC/04/INF/7) 59. The Committee noted that bushmeat continues to play an important role in providing protein, medicine and in improving income for rural poor. However, population growth and commercial hunting have led many key species to a dramatic decline while others are at the brink of extinction. 60. Delegates expressed the views that in many areas in Africa, bushmeat is crucial for the survival of local populations, such as indigenous people of the Congo Basin Forests. It was also noted that bushmeat is not only food, but also is an important part of social uses and customs. Therefore it was recommended that Governments, FAO and international Partners should accord particular attention to identify appropriate alternative solutions and help implement them in close collaboration with local communities. 61. Concerns were expressed about impacts of bushmeat on population health. On this issue, the Committee Recommended that FAO, in collaboration with relevant International and Regional Organizations, should initiate studies on sanitary risks and eventual diseases transmitted through bushmeat consumption. 62. The Meeting also noted that a number of African countries had commendable actions aiming at empowering local communities in the management of wildlife and game reserves. It was felt that such initiatives will help better balance the food security and biodiversity conservation issues. 63. The Meeting requested FAO to work with Member countries and development partners to continue sharing experiences on the subject.”

126

Annexe 2 - List of FAO contacts across Departments involved in discussions on the wild

meat issue - Building an internal transversal network

Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department - AG

Berhe Tekola AGAD Berhe.Tekola@fao.org

Juan Lubroth AGAH Juan.Lubroth@fao.org

Jan Slingenbergh AGAH Jan.Slingenbergh@fao.org

Scott Newman AGAH Scott.Newman@fao.org

Ian Douglas AGAH Ian.Douglas@fao.org

Katinka de Balogh AGAH Katinka.Debalogh@fao.org

Peter De Leeuw AGAH Peter.Deleeuw@fao.org

Julio Pinto AGAH Julio.Pinto@fao.org

Stephane de la Rocque AGAH Stephane.DeLaRocque@fao.org

Patrick Otto AGAH Patrick.Otto@fao.org

Ahmed ElIdrissi AGAH Ahmed.ElIdrissi@fao.org

Tracy McCraken AGAH Tracy.McCraken@fao.org

Daniel Beltrane Alcrudo AGAH Daniel.BeltranAlcrudo@fao.org

Sergei Khomenko AGAH sergei.khomenko@fao.org

Lindsey McCrickard AGAH Lindsey.McCrickard@fao.org

Samuel Zombou AGAH Samuel.Zombou@fao.org

Sigfrido Burgos AGAH Sigfrido.Burgos@fao.org

Nicoline de Haan AGAL Nicoline.DeHaan@fao.org

Philippe Ankers AGAS Philippe.Ankers@fao.org

Baldomero Molina-Flores AGAS Baldomero.MolinaFlores@fao.org

Daniela Battaglia AGAS Daniela.Battaglia@fao.org

Harinder Makkar AGAS Harinder.Makkar@fao.org

Mona Chaya AGDD Mona.Chaya@fao.org

Patrica Desmarchelier AGN Patricia.Desmarchelier@fao.org

Jean Michel Poirson AGN JeanMichel.Poirson@fao.org

Marisa Caipo AGN Marisa.Caipo@fao.org

Barbara Burlingame AGND Barbara.Burlingame@fao.org

Catherine Bessy AGND Catherine.Bessy@fao.org

Florence Egal AGND Florence.Egal@fao.org

Renata Clark AGND Renata.Clarke@fao.org

Sarah Cahill AGND Sarah.Cahill@fao.org

Sandro Dernini AGND sandro.dernini@fao.org

Ruth Charrondiere AGND Ruth.Charrondiere@fao.org

Peter Kenmore AGPM Peter.Kenmore@fao.org

127

Remi Kahane AGPM Remi.Kahane@fao.org

Caterina Batello AGPM Caterina.Batello@fao.org

Suzanne Redfern AGPM suzanne.redfern@fao.org

Djibril Drame AGS Djibril.Drame@fao.org

Economic and Social Development Department - ES

Terri Raney ESA Terri.Raney@fao.org

Leslie Lipper ESAD Leslie.Lipper@fao.org

Salomon Asfaw ESAD Solomon.Asfaw@fao.org

Marcela Villarreal ESWD Marcela.Villarreal@fao.org

Forestry Department - FO

Edgar Kaeslin FOMC Edgar.Kaeslin@fao.org

Adriana Caceres FOMC Adriana.CaceresCalleja@fao.org

Christophe Besacier FOMC Christophe.Besacier@fao.org

Gillian Allard FOMR Gillian.Allard@fao.org

Paul Vantomme FOEI Paul.Vantomme@fao.org

Natural Resources Management and Environment Department – NR

Anna Ricoy NRC Anna.Ricoy@fao.org

Julien Custot NRCD Julien.Custot@fao.org

Francesca Gianfelici NRCD Francesca.Gianfelici@fao.org

Linda Collete NRDC Linda.Collette@fao.org

Damiano Luchetti NRDC Damiano.Luchetti@fao.org

Fisheries and Aquaculture Department - FI

Arni Mathiesen FID Arni.Mathiesen@fao.org

Iddya Karunasagar FIPM Iddya.Karunasagar@fao.org

Rohana Subasinghe FIRA Rohana.Subasinghe@fao.org

Melba Reantaso FIRA Melba.Reantaso@fao.org

Mathias Halwart FIRA Matthias.Halwart@fao.org

John Valbo Jorgensen FIRF John.Jorgensen@fao.org

Legal Office - LEG

Marta Pardo LEGA Marta.Pardo@fao.org

128

Carmen Bulllon LEGN Carmen.Bullon@fao.org

Patrice Talla LEGN Patrice.Talla@fao.org

Office of Knowledge, Exchange, Research and Extension - OEK

Robin Bourgeois OEKD Robin.Bourgeois@fao.org

Harry Palmier OEKD Harry.Palmier@fao.org

Mario Acunzo OEKR Mario.Acunzo@fao.org

129

Annex 3 - FAO Headquarter Organigramme

130

Annex 4 - FAO Wild Meat Workshop Agenda and Abstract, 26th of October 2011

The EMPRES−Wildlife Health and Ecology Unit at the Animal Health Service (AGAH) is pleased to invite you to a workshop and discussion on:

Wild meat, Bushmeat, Livelihoods and Sustainability: Implications for Food Security, Zoonoses, Food Safety, and

Biodiversity Conservation

The goals of the workshop are:

1) To share knowledge and perspectives regarding this transversal issue and to identify synergies and opportunities for further in-

house collaborations, and

2) To develop a Draft Position Paper on Wild Meat and Bushmeat, including perspectives across FAO Departments and Divisions.

This workshop is a follow-up to the FAO “One Health” workshop held on 4-6 May 2011.

AGENDA

Wednesday, 26 October 2011 — 09:00 to 17:00, Mexico Room (D-213Bis)

Time Description Presenter/Speaker

09:00 – 09:10

09:10 – 09:20

09:20 – 09:30

Opening Remarks

Wild meat and sustainable diets

Introductions, objectives of the meeting and agenda

Berhe Tekola (AGAD)

Barbara Burlingame (AGN)

Scott Newman (AGAH)

09:30 – 09:45 Sustainable use of wild meat/bushmeat: a transversal issue for FAO

Pauline Quierzy (AGAH)

09:45 – 10:00 Food and Nutrition Security Implications AGN

10:00 – 10:15

Disease Implications

AGAH

10:15 – 10:30

Food Safety Implications AGN

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee break

11:00 – 11:15

Wildlife and Conservation Management FO

11:15 – 11:30

Social and Economic Implications AGAL/ESW

11:30 – 11:45

Managing overexploitation FI

11:45 – 12:00

Wrap – up: time for discussion All

12:00 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 –15:30

Plenary: open discussion of recommendations for Draft Position Paper All

15:30 – 16:00 Coffee break

16:00 – 17:00 Conclusions and Closure of the meeting Juan Lubroth (AGAH)

131

ABSTRACT

Definition: Wild meat —a wildlife food commodity— is defined as any non–domesticated terrestrial mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians

harvested for food (CBD, 2008).

There is an increasing concern about the use of wild meat (commonly designed by the African term “bushmeat”) and its

implications. Wildlife harvest, the trade and consumption of wild meat occur across a wide range of cultural patterns, at various geographic and

economic scales. From local communities hunting or gathering species for subsistence living to large commercial enterprises, involving millions

of tons of meat travelling long distances across international borders, the nature of the use of wild meat has quickly shifted in the past decades.

The implications of such practices are complex and wide – ranging, and should not been underestimated. Unsustainable levels of wildlife

hunting could threaten both people who depend on such resource for food or income and wildlife populations. There is an associated risk of

disease emergence and transmission through hunting and trade of wildlife, and a risk of food poisoning from wild meat consumption.

For wild meat use to be sustainable, it must be so from social, ecological and economic viewpoints. Models aimed at addressing this issue

require an inter-sectoral and multidisciplinary effort to provide concrete strategies, and reduce undesirable economic, political, social and

environmental impacts. There is potential to achieve a more sustainable use of wildlife within the “One Health” approach, helping achieve the

broader goals of sustainable development.

We seek interdepartmental input and collaboration to move forward together because the solutions to the problems of wild meat use and the

achievement of sustainable practices require a collective vision from Animal Health, Nutrition, Forestry, Fisheries, Economic, Social, and Natural

Resources. Throughout FAO, we have all the resources and good practical tools, but these need to converge pragmatically. The aim of the

workshop is to develop a Draft Position Paper on Wild Meat that incorporates the perspectives of all FAO Departments and Divisions working in

this technical area.

Organizers:

Pauline Quierzy, Wildlife Health and Ecology Unit Intern; Sigfrido Burgos Cáceres, One Health Coordinator (Communications)

Chair:

Scott Newman, Wildlife Health and Ecology Unit Coordinator

132

Annex 5 - FAO Wild Meat Workshop confirmed List of attendees, 26th of October 2011

No. Full Name Code Email

**** Sigfrido Burgos AGAH Sigfrido.Burgos@fao.org

**** Pauline Quierzy AGAH Pauline.Quierzy@fao.org

**** Scott Newman AGAH Scott.Newman@fao.org

1 Mona Chaya AGDD Mona.Chaya@fao.org

2 Berhe Tekola AGAD Berhe.Tekola@fao.org

3 Juan Lubroth AGAH Juan.Lubroth@fao.org

4 Jan Slingenbergh AGAH Jan.Slingenbergh@fao.org

5 Ian Douglas AGAH Ian.Douglas@fao.org

6 Katinka de Balogh AGAH Katinka.Debalogh@fao.org

7 Julio Pinto AGAH Julio.Pinto@fao.org

8 Patrick Otto AGAH Patrick.Otto@fao.org

9 Tracy McCraken AGAH Tracy.McCraken@fao.org

10 Koji Yamamoto FIRA Koji.Yamamoto@fao.org

11 Jean Michel Poirson AGN JeanMichel.Poirson@fao.org

12 Edgar Kaeslin FOMC Edgar.Kaeslin@fao.org

13 Barbara Burlingame AGND Barbara.Burlingame@fao.org

14 Remi Kahane AGPM Remi.Kahane@fao.org

15 Daniel Beltran-Alcrudo AGAH Daniel.BeltranAlcrudo@fao.org

16 Sergei Khomenko AGAH sergei.khomenko@fao.org

17 Lindsey McCrickard AGAH Lindsey.McCrickard@fao.org

18 Samuel Zombou AGAH Samuel.Zombou@fao.org

133

19 Nicoline de Haan AGAL Nicoline.DeHaan@fao.org

20 Catherine Bessy AGND Catherine.Bessy@fao.org

21 Sarah Cahill AGND Sarah.Cahill@fao.org

22 Marcela Villarreal ESWD Marcela.Villarreal@fao.org

23 Salomon Asfaw ESAD Solomon.Asfaw@fao.org

24 Paul Vantomme FOEI Paul.Vantomme@fao.org

25 Adriana Caceres FOMC Adriana.CaceresCalleja@fao.org

26 Christophe Besacier FOMC Christophe.Besacier@fao.org

27 Damiano Luchetti NRDC Damiano.Luchetti@fao.org

28 Charles Bebay TCES Charles.Bebay@fao.org

29 Alain Constant TCEO Alain.Constant@fao.org

30 Emelyn Azard OECM Emelyn.Alazard@fao.org

31 Robin Bourgeois OEKD Robin.Bourgeois@fao.org

32 Francesca DiStefano ESWD Francesca.DiStefano@fao.org

33 John Valbo Jorgensen FIRF John.Jorgensen@fao.org

34 Mathias Halwart FIRA Matthias.Halwart@fao.org

35 Raffaele Mattioli AGAH Raffaele.Mattioli@fao.org

36 Ludovic Plee CMC-AH Ludovic.Plee@fao.org

37 Esther Mertens FOEI Esther.Mertens@fao.org

38 Klass Dietze AGAH Klass.Dietze@fao.org

39 Nancy McNally AGAH Nancy.McNally@fao.org

40 Barbara Stadlmayr AGND Barbara.Stadlmayr@fao.org

134

Annex 6 - Matrix of approaches to wildlife

135

Annex 7 - Spotting successful partnerships so far

SYVBAC, a multi-stakeholder participatory process:

Since 2008, TRAFFIC has been supporting a participatory process for the development of a Central

African Bushmeat Monitoring System (SYVBAC). Stakeholders involved represent the working expertise

from six central African countries in the region including representatives of the Ministries of Forest

and/or Wildlife Conservation; technical and scientific institutes; NGOs; intergovernmental organizations;

development agencies; representatives of the private forest sector. They meet in technical expert

workshop to facilitate the collaboration. The general objective of SYVBAC is to generate the information

needed to support the development of policies and strategies that aim at bringing the wild meat trade to

sustainable levels. The system will gather all available survey information and provide a regular overview

of the trends in wild meat harvest and trade at the regional level through proxy indicators: pressure and

state, driver and response indicators (TRAFFIC, 2010a).

CIFOR human health research project:

The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) recognizes the importance of human health in

forest management through the collaborative work of twenty interdisciplinary teams of researchers in ten

countries in the developed and developing world. Teams looking at forests managed for timber,

plantations, and community use, identifying important links between the environment and health (Colfer

et al., 2006).

The Buffer Zone Project:

Since 1999, the Congolaise Industrielle des Bois (CIB), World Conservation Society (WCS) and the

Congolese government has formed a partnership to mitigate deleterious impacts of logging on wildlife.

Traditional systems of resource management (hunting territories) have been formalized in land-use

planning (management plans for logging concessions) and access to resources for indigenous, people

prioritized. Several explicit conservation activities, including enforcement of Congolese wildlife laws,

education, monitoring of large mammal populations, have been implemented.

Proactive national coordination in the UK:

The UK provides a good example of cooperation between different governmental departments and

agencies at a national level (NAO, 2005). The 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak showed how

136

important it is to prevent infected meat entering the country illegally. Thereafter, the Department for

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) increased its focus on health risks related to illegal meat

imports; it is now banned to import meat products in personal baggage from a non-EU country. A new

imported Food Division of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has been created. Responsibility for anti-

smuggling controls of all animal products at borders was transferred from local authorities to Customs.

To broaden its understanding of the risks, Customs began to prepare its own intelligence assessments on

the smuggling of different animal products, the first focused on wild meat. As a result, this first measure

has been to put into place with arrangements to detect illegal imports of animal products and substantially

increased seizes. For the first time in Europe, dog teams specifically trained to detect suspected illegal

meat imports are used. Customs also raised awareness amongst international travellers. In parallel, the

UK Bushmeat Working Group is a forum for discussion on wild meat related research and policy amongst

government, industry, NGOs and academia, particularly but not exclusively in relation to the UK. In the

2011 meeting on the illegal import volumes of wild meat from Africa into Europe, information

requirements for monitoring imports volume; disease risk analysis; CITES prosecution and deterrent

monitoring were shared (UK Bushmeat Working Group, 2011). A range of various actors are involved:

the Wildlife Forensics Network (for genetic identification of meat samples); Veterinary Laboratory

Agency (for pathogen screening and risk analysis); Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and Royal

Veterinary College (for survey of volumes, species and pathogens at airport). A wish to network and

increase interest from the governmental, airport and shipment representation was expressed. Very

recently, the first European meeting of the Cooperative Arrangement for the Prevention of Spread of

Communicable Disease through Air Travel (CAPSCA) took place in Paris.

HUNT or “Hunting for Sustainability” is a timely project whose overall goal is to assess the social,

cultural, economic and ecological functions and impacts of hunting across a broad range of contexts in

Europe and Africa.

137

Annex 8 - Lessons from co-management of caribou herds in the Canadian Arctic

Lessons from co-management of caribou herds in the Canadian Arctic for twenty years support

and suggest that the involvement of local users in wild meat management could go a long way towards

ensuring the sustainability of key wild meat species (Hurst, 2004). Policy decisions based on perceived

“crises” instead of sound research can have adverse effects on both wildlife populations and local

communities. Commitment to co-management depends on developing a climate of mutual respect. Local

people will actively participate in conservation when they feel their own interests are protected by it. The

collection of scientific data should be complemented by consultations with local resource users.

Establishing the legitimacy of environmental claims is a pre-requisite for just and effective management

of common property or open-access resources. Legitimate local claims on resources need the backing of

law and the support of government if they are to withstand some external claims. Without this, local

people will not be able to withstand the pressures that can lead to overexploitation or environmentally

destructive development projects. For instance, questions, as the “rights” of urban people to share in a

sovereign national resource, either through taxes or with a portion of wild meat harvested should be

raised. Determining the legitimacy of arrangements requires consideration of equity issues. Links between

local subsistence economies and wider market economies do not have to be detrimental to either local

people or wildlife populations if managed properly, and can generate significant income for local people.

No solution will entirely eliminate all threats to wildlife sustainability. Claims for a risk-free solution

should be treated with scepticism.

138

Annex 9 - FAO/GEF programme goals on Sustainable Management of the Wildlife and

Bushmeat Sector in Central Africa

1) Legal and policy reforms

a. To give communities exclusive rights to wildlife on their land

b. To make it legal to harvest and sell wildlife under well-defined criteria

i. To decriminalize bushmeat production where it a) is sustainably produced and b)

meets biodiversity conservation objectives

c. To develop a regional wildlife management policy

2) Development of PWM tools

a. For the development of community level rules/regulation for wildlife management

i. Financial incentives

ii. Wildlife monitoring systems

iii. Targeted awareness raising

3) Institutional capacity building

a. Strengthen capacities of several major stakeholders

b. Develop capacity to replicate and adapt PWM systems elsewhere

4) Project management, monitoring, and evaluation

139

Annex 10 - FAO Mandate, Strategic Objectives and Core functions - Extract from FAO

Medium Term Plan 2010-2013 and Programme of Work and Budget 2012-2013 – p.12

FAO’s vision:

A world free of hunger and malnutrition where food and agriculture contributes to improving the living standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner.

The three Global Goals of Members:

reduction of the absolute number of people suffering from hunger, progressively ensuring a world in which all people at all times have sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life;

elimination of poverty and the driving forward of economic and social progress for all,

with increased food production, enhanced rural development and sustainable livelihoods;

sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources, including land, water, air, climate and genetic resources, for the benefit of present and future generations.

Strategic Objectives

A. Sustainable intensification of crop production

B. Increased sustainable livestock production

C. Sustainable management and use of fisheries and aquaculture resources

D. Improved quality and safety of foods at all stages of the food chain

E. Sustainable management of forests and trees

F. Sustainable management of land, water and genetic resources and improved responses to global environmental challenges affecting food and agriculture

G. Enabling environment for markets to improve livelihoods and rural development

H. Improved food security and better nutrition

I. Improved preparedness for, and effective response to, food and agricultural threats and emergencies

K. Gender equity in access to resources, goods, services and decision-making in the rural areas

L. Increased and more effective public and private investment in agriculture and rural development

Functional Objectives

X. Effective collaboration with Member States and stakeholders

Y. Efficient and effective administration

Core Functions

a. Monitoring and assessment of long-term and medium-term trends and perspectives

b. Assembly and provision of information, knowledge and statistics

c. Development of international instruments, norms and standards

d. Policy and strategy options and advice

e. Technical support to promote technology transfer and build

capacity f. Advocacy and communication

g. Inter-disciplinarity and innovation

h. Partnerships and alliance

140

Annex 11 - The Millennium Development Goals

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

2. Achieve universal primary education

3. Promote gender equality and empower women

4. Reduce child mortality

5. Improve maternal health

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7. Ensure environmental sustainability

8. Develop a global partnership for development

141

Annex 12 - FAO Wild Meat Workshop Presentation on “The sustainable use of wild meat:

a transversal issue for FAO”, 26th of October 2011

142

143

144

Annex 13 – Supporting research needs on wild meat and sustainability

A need for a collective database on wild meat-related practices:

Our literature review shows that there is a significant body of knowledge on the use of wild meat, but dispersed

and fragmented. Field studies are usually site-specific without follow-up or coordination among sites and many are

unpublished reports or not easily accessible. As a result, lessons learnt are difficult to capitalize and stakeholders do

not have objective data generated at national and regional levels to support their management decisions. As an

example, wild meat is currently not explicitly included in the Observatory for the Forests of Central Africa (OFAC),

which aims at pooling the knowledge and available data necessary to monitor the ecological, environmental, and

social aspects of Central African forests.

Communication of this knowledge needs to be strengthened between researchers, practitioners and policy-

makers; across dimensions and disciplines (Chardonnet et al., 1998). An ambitious but useful task should be the

creation of a global database on traditional and contemporary wild meat-related practices, kind of central data

repository-information, managed by all stakeholders (J. Slingenbergh, personal communication, 2011). Such

practices and their implications should be recorded and documented (animal species used, traditional knowledge of

human communities around wild meat), for ecology (as traditional peoples are integrated into the global economy,

and come under trade, acculturation and population pressures, they lose their attachment to their own restricted

resource catchments), culture (wild meat is an important resource linking people to their environment and its use

promotes the traditional related lore; traditional knowledge is valuable), economy (the annual global trade in wild

meat is significant in national and regional economies; the chain is complex and the role of each actor not

completely elucidated yet; the position of indigenous communities within the wider economy and society, their

access to or ownership of land and natural resources) and public health (behaviors and practices to be linked with

diseases emergence and transmission).

A need for an independent, transparent and robust system of monitoring:

At national scale, wild meat hardly figures, except repressively, in public policy and tends to be ignored in

internal statistics. Thus, its importance in livelihoods security is poorly understood. Future predictions on wild meat

hunting for food or income require research to provide accurate information on human population sizes, movements,

economic activities, growth rate, and sub-classification under different groups (indigenous people, rural

communities, urban population, migratory workers); for each population groups where wildlife is found: wild meat

consumption levels, how wild meat consumption is affected by access to alternative proteins and changes in income

and education level should be documented (Rushton, 2005). An independent, transparent and robust system of data

monitoring on wild meat dimensions will make possible to draw future scenarios.

145

A survey to get a larger-scale picture of the illegal imports would necessitate building a network of

organisations including international governmental, airport and shipment representation. Using genetic techniques,

on seizures at customs, to identify species traded could be useful for both conservation and public health (Baker

Scott, Steel and Choi, 2010). Three different approaches have been developed: DNA bar coding (which amplifies

mitochondrial DNA and is compared against reference barcodes); species-specific primes used in restrictive PCR

conditions; and a micro-array system (which uses both nuclear and mitochondria genes) (McEwing and Ogden,

2006, 2008). A difficulty is that meat seizures are usually destroyed immediately upon discovery. Sampling

conditions should be reviewed and airports should have laboratory facilities. In the UK, a CITES specialist is part of

the Customs team to tackle illegal trade of CITES-listed species. Such an agent could be trained at tackling unusual

macroscopic lesions and sampling at the same time.

A wide range legislative review on existing rules and laws (on land tenure, wildlife rights, entitlements), related

to hunting and species specific regulations, as well as their level of enforcement should be conducted. A

harmonization of the EU air legislation is needed to make possible any wild meat seizure even from non-direct

flights from non-EU countries.

Integrating wild meat to national public strategies, such as NRPS (in line with MDGs), could render the use of

wild meat more visible. A step further, legalizing the trade, should make it even easier data collection, both

qualitatively and quantitatively.

A need for forecasting through risk assessments:

A better visibility of such information renders possible proteins shortages, diseases and species extinction risk

assessments. Veterinary services (VS); whose involvement in both conservation and development fields is growing;

have key roles to play in the application of Risk Management Frameworks (RMF); which with they are familiar with

for diseases risk analysis (McKenzie, 2006), at least in developed countries. The OIE is aware that in many

developing countries, VS are inadequate to address the challenges of today and the future.

Risk assessment is a delicate task, particularly in developing countries, which are often under resourced in terms

of regulatory systems and scientific capacity and where there is limited communication and poor monitoring and

feedback of information. Procedures involved are complex and resource-intensive and the wild meat trade remain

informal, so far. Risk management options are formulated according to specific knowledge, cost-benefit

considerations and technical feasibility of controls. Implement controls, not necessarily mandated by regulations but

rather take effect through, for example, education to basic practices and training programmes. Surveillance is also

about data collection, management of information and communication. In a national surveillance scheme, these steps

could be under the responsibility of multidisciplinary team, involving veterinarians, conservationists and

developmentalists.

Managing at the same time food security, public health and food safety aspects requires adequate capacity to

prevent, detect, and respond to a wide range of issues. This requires international intelligence, surveillance,

146

realizable response plans, supportive scientific research, personnel training, and operational communication

networks.

The challenge for risk assessment with wild meat is that of making good decisions with poor data.

A need for tremendous innovations in web-based tools:

A real - time, open-access “wild meat map” that shows populations needs in animal proteins, tracks emerging

infectious diseases moving between hunted/traded wildlife and people and finally species status regarding

conservation should be complementary to the previous tools described. Visualising data concerning the four

dimensions elected in this report, on a same map, at the same time, could be of valuable interest to have a broad

holistic overview on one situation and take integrated decisions. As an example, during a food crisis, people

suffering from hunger may rely more on natural environmental resources, leading to species depletion. New

interfaces, populations’ flows accompanied with livestock, high human densities, poor hygiene conditions combined

may favour diseases transmission. In such cases, mapping available data regarding food security, public health and

conservation at that time would be interesting for decision making (for instance in the context of the recent July

regional food insecurity crisis in East and Central Africa). Regarding proteins, there is still considerable

disagreement as to the extent to which people use wild meat, and whether people would suffer if wild meat were no

longer available.

HealthMap is a successful example of freely accessible, information system for monitoring, organizing and

visualizing reports of global disease outbreaks according to geography, time and infectious disease agent

(Brownstein et al., 2008). Such a system needs collaborative inputs to function (PREDICT, EcoHealth Alliance,

WCS already gather some data at the interface wildlife/human through hunting and poaching activities) and could

integrate data from already existing databases, such as the Illegal Import of Animal Product Seizures (ILAPS) of

DEFRA. TRAFFIC has a contract with the European Commission and liaises with all of the EU member states.

TRAFFIC also coordinate with EU-TWIX (European Union Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange) which

comprises a database of information on wildlife seizures in the EU and an associated mailing list that allows quick

and efficient information sharing between designated enforcement officers from all 27 EU member states

(TRAFFIC, 2010b).

A need for capacity building across dimensions:

The objective of building national capacity in any domain is to empower countries to meet their own needs

autonomously. It is far more than just technical ability but also requires supportive legislation and policies,

functional organization and appropriate governance, and must be affordable and sustained by the country in the long

term. Such support often is contingent upon a country accepting agendas and priorities that may conflict with

established national priorities, sovereignty, and security and control of information.

147

Trainings are important to wildlife conservation, public health and national economies at the time and programs

should point out such interconnectivity. We recommend that programs on wild meat take place within the context of

broader programs that aim to improve rural people’s livelihoods and infrastructure, reduce poverty and corruption,

strengthen health education and conservation. Raising awareness during public health education sessions on HIV

could be an opportunity. Educational campaigns could be diffused via films and radios.

It is of particular importance to build up community education programs using culturally appropriate language

and methods (Bahuchet, 1993). Trainers should be trusted members of the community. As the use of wild meat is

likely to continue, people should be encouraged to undertake hunting and butchering more safely for their own and

their community’s health. Education interventions would act to reduce contact with wild animal blood and body

fluids, through changes in hunting and butchering behaviors. Whether health education that explicitly demonstrates

that biological rather than supernatural origins of disease would alter behavior is a question worth answering.

Particular efforts should be made to include women in these interventions. Basic food hygiene includes better

education of consumers on how to use, transport and store wild meat.

Most people are willing to modify and work with national and international healthcare workers (Hewlett and

Amola, 2003). WHO technical guidelines for responding to Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever (EHF) state that, in

conducting epidemiologic surveillance: “special attention must be given to the actual perception of the outbreak by

the community. In particular, specific cultural elements and local beliefs must be taken into account to ensure

proper messages, confidence, and close cooperation of the community” (WHO, 1997).

The examination of pathogen exchange in regions of host overlap may identify social factors that influence

pathogen emergence. Data on forest use by human communities surrounding forest reserves and levels of crop

raiding by NHPs have been collected as part of ongoing conservation projects. We could build a set of forest-

oriented behavioral risks (Wolfe, Escalante and Karesh, 1998).

148

Table of contents

Acknowledgments p.3

Summary p.5

Key words p.5

Contents p.6

Abbreviations and acronyms p.9

Introduction p.12

1. State of knowledge on the use of wild meat according to four

dimensions: p.15

a. Food security: p.16

i. Background p.16

ii. Science-based facts: p.16

The use of wild meat: at the crossroads of nutritional, economic and

sociocultural purposes p.16

The wild meat commodity chain p.17

Incentives for hunting p.19

- In rural areas p.19

Do people hunt for food or income? Is wild meat valuable used for household consumption or

market sales? p.19

Do people hunt by choice or necessity? Is wild meat more valuable in worsening livelihood

situations? p.20

What is the relationship between wealth and/or income level and wild meat consumption? p.21

149

Is wild meat consumption dependent on its price or on the price of alternative meat based

protein? Is wild meat taste preferred over the others? p.22

- In urban areas (logging towns and cities) p.23

iii. Discussion p.24

b. Zoonoses: p.26

i. Background p.26

ii. Science-based facts: p.26

Human encroachment on forest habitat: how deforestation and hunting led

to the emergence of retroviruses (SIV/HIV/SFV): focus on Congo Basin

p.27

Opening new areas: how roads construction and increased movements of

peoples and their animals from neighbouring communities led to tuberculosis

(TB), Anthrax and Ebola cases: focus on Sub-Saharan Africa p.29

Human encroachment through expanded urbanization: how wet markets

and butchering led to the emergence of a new coronavirus: focus on Asia

p.31

Recreational hunting: how high densities of preys and hunting put both

humans and domesticated animals at risk: focus on Europe/America p.32

iii. Discussion p.32

c. Food safety: p.36

i. Background p.36

ii. Science-based facts: p.36

The microbiological hazard: p.37

150

Production (wildlife management); slaughtering (hunting) and handling (butchering and

dressing): p.37

Processing (hanging and conservation techniques) p.38

Marketing (transportation to rural and urban markets/exportation, trade p.39

Cooking and consuming p.40

The chemical hazard: p.42

Production p.42

Slaughtering p.43

Processing p.43

Marketing p.43

iii. Discussion: p.43

Field level: public health education around wild meat p.44

International level: controlling illegal wild meat imports p.45

d. Biodiversity conservation: p.46

i. Background: p.46

ii. Science-based facts: p.46

The empirical evidence p.46

A complex medley of factors underlies overexploitation: p.48

Demographic factors p.48

Technological factors p.48

Cultural factors p.49

Economic factors p.49

Institutional and governance factors p.49

151

Long-term ecological impacts p.50

On wildlife p.50

On ecosystems p.51

On humans p.51

Developing reliable sustainability assessments p.51

Finding solutions to reduce pressure on wildlife p.53

iii. Discussion p.54

2. Wild meat, livelihoods, and sustainability: transversal issues across

dimensions and disciplines: p.56

a. Where do the four dimensions meet? p.56

i. Linkages between food security and conservation p.57

ii. Linkages between food security and public health p.57

iii. Linkages between public health and conservation p.58

b. The value of social sciences in addressing the issue: p.59

i. Anthropology p.59

ii. Sociology p.61

iii. Political and economical history p.61

iv. Political sciences, economics, law, and international relations p.63

v. Social and moral philosophy p.65

152

3. Implications for FAO when addressing wild meat, livelihoods, and

sustainability: p.67

a. Expanding internal dialogue: p.67

i. Seeking cross-sectoral collaboration: p.67

Identifying the existing resources p.67

Building on the experience of other sectors p.67

ii. Building a multidisciplinary working group: p.69

A broad-based professional and personal team p.69

Spotting successful partnerships p.69

b. Converging to support a common approach: p.70

i. From conservation to development and health: p.70

1. First paradigm: to protect biodiversity from people:

p.70

Conservation-based strategies: p.70

Wild meat supply control p.71

Wild meat demand reduction p.71

Wild meat alternatives development p.72

Encouraging diversification of agricultural incomes: p.72

Agriculture (crops): vegetable proteins p.72

Breeding: animal proteins from livestock, wildlife farming and/or ranching p.73

Livestock p.73

Captive breeding of wild species: wildlife farming/ranching p.74

153

Harvesting other types of wildlife: animal proteins from fishing and collecting invertebrates:

p.76

Fish p.76

Invertebrates p.76

2. Second paradigm: to help people use biodiversity sustainably:

p.78

Pro-poor conservation based-strategies: ICDPs p.78

Development-based strategies: p.79

- Rights-based management (entitlements) p.79

- A step forward: legalizing wild meat production and trade: the most effective

management strategy? p.80

3. Third paradigm: conservation moves from saving biodiversity to

promote biosynergy p.83

4. Fourth paradigm: the risk analysis p.83

ii. FAO and One Health p.85

c. Recognizing the issue´s relevance to the FAO mandate: p.87

i. A cause for institutional dialogue at an international level:

p.87

1. Poverty and the unsustainable use of wild meat: sharing

common underlying causes

p.87

2. Governance and the unsustainable use of wild meat: managing

a common resource p.88

3. Unsustainable use of wild meat: a public health concern with

no boundaries p.90

154

ii. Working in line with the FAO objectives p.91

Conclusion p.93

Bibliographical references p.96

List of key websites consulted p.114

Glossary p.115

List of Annexes p.123

Annex 1 Extracts from the reports of FAO Regional Conference for Africa p. 124

Annex 2 List of FAO contacts across Departments involved in discussions on the wild meat issue - Building an internal transversal network

p. 125

Annex 3 FAO Headquarter Organigramme p. 128

Annex 4 FAO Wild Meat Workshop Agenda and Abstract, 26th of October 2011 p. 129

Annex 5 FAO Wild Meat Workshop confirmed List of attendees, 26th of October

2011

p. 131

Annex 6 Matrix of approaches to wildlife p. 133

Annex 7 Spotting successful partnerships so far p. 134

Annex 8 Lessons from co-management of caribou herds in the Canadian Arctic p. 136

Annex 9 FAO/GEF programme goals on Sustainable Management of the Wildlife

and Bushmeat Sector in Central Africa

p. 137

Annex 10 FAO Mandate, Strategic Objectives and Core functions p. 138

Annex 11 The Millennium Development Goals p. 139

Annex 12 FAO Wild Meat Workshop Presentation on “The sustainable use of wild

meat: a transversal issue for FAO”, 26th of October 2011

p. 140

Annex 13 Supporting research on wild meat and sustainability p. 143