Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Bushmeat research in the past 3 decades: What has it changed for sustainable hunting?


Published on

Presentation by Nathalie van Vliet at the symposium, "Innovative ways for conserving the ecosystem services provided by bushmeat" in the 51th Annual Meeting ATBC 2014 in Cairns, Australia.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Bushmeat research in the past 3 decades: What has it changed for sustainable hunting?

  1. 1. ATBC, Cairns 20-24 July 2014 van Vliet N., Cornelis D. and Nasi R. Bushmeat research in the past 3 decades: What has it changed for sustainable hunting?
  2. 2. Introduction Mammals& Amphibians& Rep/les& Birds& Bushmeat&is&defined&by&the&CBD&(2008)&as&any&non?domes/cated&terrestrial&mammals,&birds,&rep/les&and& amphibians&harvested&for&food.&Insects,&crustaceans,&grubs,&molluscs&and&fish&are&excluded&from&this& defini/on.&
  3. 3. Introduction !  4 million tons / year in the Congo Basin !  1 million tons/ year in the Amazon Beef&Bushmeat& •  Europe produces 7,5 million tons / year of beef •  Brazil (second world producer) produces 8,5 million tons /year of beef&
  4. 4. Bushmeat as an evolving topic • Ecological&issues& • Socio?economic&&issues& • Health&issues& • Cultural&issues& Transi/ons&in&disciplines,*theore/cal*frameworks*and** management*op/ons*tested*in*the*field& Future&trends&in&bushmeat&research&
  5. 5. Transitions in disciplines and theoretical frameworks related to Bushmeat Ecological&issues&(1990?onwards)& Why is Eating Bushmeat A Biodiversity Crisis? By Elizabeth Bennett1 Heather Eves2 John Robinson1 & David Wilkie1 D M 1 Wildlife Conservation Society & 2 Bushmeat Crisis Task Force Percent of wildlife species hunted un- sustainably at sites in the world’s tropical forests (1) Bolivia 50% Ecuador 30% Ecuatorial Guinea 31% Central African Rep. 100% Kenya 43% Sulawesi 70% Eating meat. People eat as much meat in Central Africa as in the U.S. or U.K. In Central Africa, most of this meat comes from wildlife. (2, 3, 4) 58 kg 61kg 70 kg 73 kg M Meat eaten per capita per year eforestation still threatens habitat in tropical forests. But when the equivalent of 4 million cattle in wildlife—many of which are endangered species—are hunted and eaten each year in Central Africa alone, tropical forests throughout the world face a more immediate threat, known as the “empty forest syndrome.” It turns out we can “defauna” a forest quicker than we can “deforest” it. Tropical forests, in contrast to tropical savannas, are particularly susceptible to over-hunting because they support less wildlife—by at least an order of magnitude. Hunting intensity is increasing as demand for meat increases with human population, as new, more lethal hunting technologies such as wire snares and firearms are widely adopted, and as logging roads and vehicles open once isolated forests and significantly reduce hunters’ and traders’ transportation costs. The commercial trade in bushmeat has become a multimil- lion dollar business. Hunters consider all wildlife fair game; and they prefer large animals such as apes, elephants and large antelope because they generate the highest returns on investment. When large animals become scarce, hunting pressure on the system may not relinquish if smaller animals are sufficiently abundant to keep hunting economically viable. And whenever they can, hunters will still take the more profitable large animals, regardless of their scarcity. This is unsustainable. As hunting pressure increases in a given area, hunters will hunt smaller and smaller animals as large animals become depleted and in many cases extirpated. In marine systems, conservationists have warned that we are fishing down the food chain. In tropical forests, we face an analgous threat—hunting down the body size. Conservation initiatives range from working with logging companies to close unused roads and to restrict access, to working with national governments and interna- tional agencies to make commer-
  6. 6. The Empty Forest Many large animals are alreadyecologically extinct of neotropical forest where the vegetation still app KentH. Redford he worldconservationcom- munity has focused much of its attentionon the plight of tropical forests. Many authors have lamentedthe loss of forestcoverand the destructionof the forestand spec- ulated on the extent of the tropical forestleft intact.Throughoutthe dis- cussion, tall, majestic,tropical trees areusedas a symbolfor the complete set of animalandplant speciesfound in tropicalforests.Treesarealsobeing usedby some conservationbiologists, parkplanners,andothersto represent theentiretropicalforestbiotaandas a measureof conservationworth. Thepresenceof soaring,buttressed tropical trees, however, does not guarantee the presence of resident fauna.Often trees remainin a forest thathumanactivitieshaveemptiedof many of its large animals. The ab- sence of these animalshas profound implications,one of which is that a forest can be destroyed by humans fromwithin as well as fromwithout. Until recently,humaninfluenceon tropical forests through such activi- ties as burning,swidden agriculture, and huntingwas regardedby ecolo- gistsas of suchlow impactthatit was negligible,as importantbut confined to areas of human settlement,or as confinedto rapaciouscolonizersde- Kent H. Redford is the directorof the Programfor Studiesin TropicalConser- vation and an associateprofessorin the Center for Latin AmericanStudies and Departmentof Wildlife and Range Sci- ence, Universityof Florida, Gainesville, FL32611. ? 1992 AmericanInstituteof BiologicalSciences. We must not let a forest full of trees fool us into believingall is well stroyingthe forest from the outside. In any case, ecologists looked for study sites that would allow for ex- aminationof "natural"processesun- contaminated by anthropogenicef- fects.Datafrombotany,archaeology, and anthropologycollectedin many partsof the world areshowing,how- ever, that anthropogeniceffects are ubiquitousand that the sought-after virginhabitatmay not exist. Flenley (1979), for example,has documented widespreadhumaneffectson tropical foreststhroughoutthe equatorialre- gions. The relativelyrecentarrivalof hu- mans in the westernhemispherehas not lessened the overall impact our species has had on neotropicalfor- ests. From the forests of Mexico through Panama, and the montane forestsof Colombiato Ecuador,sci- entistshave documentedthe ways in whichpre-Columbianhumansaltered the presence,extent, and structureof forests. The forests of the Amazon basinwere also extensivelyalteredby humanactivities.Infact,Balee(1989) has recently suggestedthat at least 11.8%of theterrafirmeforestsof the Brazilian Amazon, almost 400,000 km2,show continuingeffectsof past humaninterference. With few e haveconcentra of vegetation,n in which hum fected the anim ecosystems.In the focus to in tropicalforest forests of the show that the l of tropicalfor be possible if t also preserved Indirectdefa Humans can indirector dir faunationis the through huma specificallyat a ests, habitat d commonof th prisingly,many survivewithou consideredtype occurswhen an an areaof othe becausesome c such as a ne stroyed.Thisp including mig nestingturtles cary (Tayassup There are m directdefauna important is p forest-extracti mans. For exa move fruit-bea nestingand oth Less obviou stem from the Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, a may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or p page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor. Empty forest syndrom
  7. 7. Ecological&issues&(1990s?onwards)& Simple&biological&models& van Vliet (2008), Variabilité spatiale et temporelle au sein du système « chasseur-animal-territoire de chasse villageois » 7 rendement maximum durable ou « Maximum Sustainable Yield » (MSY) et capacité de charge (K). La plupart des mammifères chassés de la zone tropicale suivent une courbe de population densité-dépendante. Un prélèvement durable dans une population animale dépend donc de la relation entre le taux d’accroissement et la taille de population. Le modèle « Stock-Recrutement » prédit le risque des prélèvements à différents niveaux de population (MCCULLOUGH, 1987 sité dans BODMER & ROBINSON, 2005). Le plus haut niveau de population se situe à la capacité de charge (K) et le plus bas se situe à l’extinction de la population (0). Dans ce modèle, le MSY se situe à 50% de K pour les espèces à très courte longévité, à 60% de K pour des espèces à courte longévité et à 80% de K pour des espèces à longue durée de vie. Un prélèvement durable peut avoir lieu à différents niveaux de population, mais il existe un seul point auquel le prélèvement est maximum, c’est le Maximum Sustainable Yield (CAUGHLEY, 1977). La densité d’une population chassée (N) peut être positionnée par rapport à MSY et à K dans la courbe du modèle (voir figure 1). Une surexploitation au niveau de population A peut conduire à l’extinction de la population alors qu’une surexploitation au niveau de population B peut réduire le niveau de population sans risque d’extirpation. Le modèle « Stock-Recrutement » ne sert pas à évaluer la durabilité de la chasse à l’instant t. Par contre, c’est un outil puissant pour prévoir le potentiel de durabilité de la chasse à long terme. Figure 1: Représentation du modèle « Stock-Recrutement » avec K et MSY A B MSY 0 K Maximum Sustainable Yield Densité de la population kg/km2 Niveau de prelevement durable kg/km2 /an 0.2 pour des espèces qui ont une longévité de moins de 5 ans, entre 5 et 10 ans et supérieure à 10 ans, respectivement. Ce facteur hypothétique a été estimé pour les espèces Néo tropicales et a été appliqué sans réajustement pour les espèces africaines. Pmax est calculé comme suit: Pmax = (e rmax –1)*D Avec D : la densité de l’espèce et rmax : le taux maximum d’accroissement de la population. Etant donné que les densités sont difficiles à mesurer sur le terrain, ROBINSON & REDFORD (1991) ont proposé d’utiliser une valeur prédictive de D, fonction de la capacité de charge des milieux (K). La valeur de D mesurée dans une zone non chassée est supposée représenter la valeur de K. La loi logistique de croissance d’une population montre que la production maximum (Pmax) est atteinte pour une densité égale à 0,5K. Sur la base de courbes de croissance de population établies pour des espèces Néo tropicales, ROBINSON & REDFORD (1991) montrent que, pour les espèces qui ne mettent bas que tard dans leur vie, la production maximum est atteinte lorsque D est égal à 0,6K et Pmax est égale à: Pmax = (e rmax –1)*D= (ermax –1)*0,6 K La valeur du Prélèvement Maximum Durable (PDM) (ou Maximum Sustainable Harvest (MSH) dans la suite de ce document), est ensuite comparée au prélèvement observé. Si les prélèvements sont supérieurs au MSH, alors la chasse n’est pas durable et peut rendre les espèces exploitées vulnérables au risque d’extinction ou déséquilibrer le fonctionnement de l’écosystème (ROBINSON & REDFORD, 1991). Robinson&&&Redford,&1991& Transitions in disciplines and theoretical frameworks related to Bushmeat
  8. 8. Ecological&issues&(1990s?onwards)& Law&enforcement&and&sensi/za/on& &(Hyp:&Hun/ng&is&criminal,&unsafe&and& unsustainable)& Department of Geography & Geology
  9. 9. & "According&to&BIOLOGICAL&MODELS,& HUNTING&IS&UNSUSTAINABLE&AND& DUIKERS&ARE&BOUND&TO&BECOME& EXTINCT,&but&DUIKERs&don't&know& anything&about&&BIOLOGICAL& MODELS,&so&they&ahead&and&SURVIVE& anyway.”& & Nathalie van Vliet & &
  10. 10. Transitions in terms of the theoretical frameworks used for the analysis Ecological&issues&(1990s?onwards)& “Long7term*popula/on*monitoring*programmes& will&be&the&most&informa/ve&approach&to&provide& baseline&informa/on&against&which&any&hun/ng& effects&and/or&conserva/on&interven/ons&can&be& monitored”& R E V I E W A N D S Y N T H E S I S Searching for sustainability: are assessments of wildlife harvests behind the times? Karen Z. Weinbaum,1 * Justin S. Brashares,1 Christopher D. Golden1,3 and Wayne M. Getz1,2 Abstract The unsustainable harvest of wildlife is a major threat to global biodiversity and to the millions of people who depend on wildlife for food and income. Past research has called attention to the fact that commonly used methods to evaluate the sustainability of wildlife hunting perform poorly, yet these methods remain in popular use today. Here, we conduct a systematic review of empirical sustainability assessments to quantify the use of sustainability indicators in the scientific literature and highlight associations between analytical methods and their outcomes. We find that indicator type, continent of study, species body mass, taxonomic group and socio-economic status of study site are important predictors of the probability of reported sus- tainability. The most common measures of sustainability include population growth models, the Robinson & Redford (1991) model and population trends through time. Indicators relying on population-specific bio- logical data are most often used in North America and Europe, while cruder estimates are more often used in Africa, Latin America and Oceania. Our results highlight both the uncertainty and lack of uniformity in sustainability science. Given our urgent need to conserve both wildlife and the food security of rural peoples around the world, improvements in sustainability indicators are of utmost importance. Keywords Ecology Letters, (2013) 16: 99–111 doi: 10.1111/ele.12008 R E V I E W A N D S Y N T H E S I S Searching for sustainability: are asses harvests behind the times? Karen Z. Weinbaum,1 * Justin S. Brashares,1 Christopher D. Golden1,3 and Wayne M. Getz1,2 Abstract The unsustainable harvest of wildlife is a major threat to glob who depend on wildlife for food and income. Past research ha used methods to evaluate the sustainability of wildlife hunting p popular use today. Here, we conduct a systematic review of em the use of sustainability indicators in the scientific literature a methods and their outcomes. We find that indicator type, conti group and socio-economic status of study site are important p tainability. The most common measures of sustainability includ & Redford (1991) model and population trends through time. I logical data are most often used in North America and Europe in Africa, Latin America and Oceania. Our results highlight bo sustainability science. Given our urgent need to conserve bo peoples around the world, improvements in sustainability indica Ecology Letters, (2013) 16: 99–111
  11. 11. Ecological&issues&(1990s?onwards)& Socio?economic&issues&(2000&onwards)& Wildlife Policy Briefing 003 Bushmeat & poverty alleviation: implications for development policy David Brown Bushmeat - the positives? This article is concerned with the bushmeat trade – that is, with the trade in wild meat (usually smoked meat of larger mammals), for consumptive purposes as a protein source. It focuses on the situation in West-Central Africa. With some licence, the article treats the trade in this region in a fairly Policy conclusions There is a need to shift the bushmeat debate onto more positive terrain, recognising the many benefits which the trade in wild meat offers the range state economies. There are strong practical and moral arguments to favour increased engagement by development assistance agencies in this debate. The arguments in favour of bushmeat as a component of social safety nets are strong; those relating to its possible role in economic transformation are less well understood. Bushmeat could well figure as a component of governance reform; this would have implications for the policies of international conservation agencies quite as much as range state governments. Strategies of governance reform would include legal and regulatory reform, in a pro-poor direction. These must be linked to the establishment of channels of legitimate trade, if the reforms are not merely to drive this lucrative industry further underground. Number 2 , November 2003 The bushmeat trade is a subject of heightened interest in conservation circles, but has rarely been taken up by development assistance agencies. This has hindered the search for effective solutions which engender local ownership. Three considerations commend the issue to development agencies at the present time: in relation to poverty alleviation, wild meat figures strongly in social safety nets and might figure as a component of economic growth and development; it could well figure in governance reform. This paper considers the arguments relating to these three areas and the policy implications arising. attractive to these peoples, particularly to the poor. These include: High returns to discontinuous labour inputs, with low risk and minimal capital outlay. Excellent storage properties and a high value/weight ratio; it is easily transported and is thus an attractive commodity for producers in isolated areas who have few alternatives. A commodity chain characterised by high social inclusivity, in both wealth and gender terms. Labour inputs that are easily reconciled with the agricultural cycle, and with diversified income-earning strategies. Unlike many high-value marketed commodities, usage can readily be switched between consumption and trade. The starting point in any analysis of the bushmeat trade should surely be these positive benefits, and any attempt to improve its management should take the preservation of them as its fundamental parameter. That these benefits are rarely seriously acknowledged, and even less often preserved in policy, can be related partly to genuine concerns about sustainability of a resource whose supply appears markedly inelastic. But the stigmatisation of the trade in western media goes beyond this issue, and arguably owes more to the projection of the values of industrial society onto the tropical world than any desire to guarantee the future interests of the bushmeat-dependent poor. Paradoxically, far from securing international conservation objectives, such stigmatisation may well be contributing unwittingly to their frustration. Varying perspectives on the bushmeat trades “There&is&a&need&to&shic&the&bushmeat&debate&onto&more& posi/ve&terrain,&recognizing&the&many&benefits&which&the& trade&in&wild&meat&offers&the&range&state&economies”.&& & Transitions in disciplines and theoretical frameworks related to Bushmeat
  12. 12. Ecological&issues&(1990s&onwards)& Socio?economic&issues&(2000&onwards)& Transitions in disciplines and theoretical frameworks related to Bushmeat Markets& Food& security& and& nutri/on& Local& livelihoods& Poverty& and& income&
  13. 13. Department of Geography & Geology Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Report prepared for the CBD Bushmeat Liaison Group 60 CBD Technical Series No. 60 LIVELIHOOD ALTERNATIVES FOR THE UNSUSTAINABLE USE OF BUSHMEAT Ecological&issues&(1990s?onwards)& Law&enforcement& and&sensi/za/on& Socio?economic&issues&(2000&onwards)& Alterna/ves&of&livelihood& (Hyp:&People&will&switch&to& other&alterna/ves&of& income&and&food&if&those& were&made&available)&
  14. 14. Ecological&issues&(1990&s&onwards)& Socio&economic&issues&(2000&onwards)& Health&issues&(2005&onwards)& 0 4,500 9,000 13,500 18,0002,250 Kilometers Number Reports Up to 15 16-30 31-45 46 and Above Fig. 2. Countries of origin of bushmeat items confiscated at US ports of entry, September 2005–December 2010 (n = 422). 30 40 50 60 70 Percentage(%) 80 90 100 Dallas Chicago Houston New York DC Atlanta Boston Newark Detroit Bushmeat Importation into the United States 2005–2010 H. Bair-Brake et al. Transitions in disciplines and theoretical frameworks related to Bushmeat
  15. 15. Ecological&issues&(1990s&onwards)& Socio&economic&issues&(2000&onwards)& Health&issues&(2005&onwards)& Cultural&aspects&(2010&onwards)& Transitions in disciplines and theoretical frameworks related to Bushmeat
  16. 16. Bushmeat*in*the*interna/onal*policy*framework*
  17. 17. Future trends in Bushmeat research Food security and health Cultural Identity Ecological foot print
  18. 18. Department of Geography & Geology Multifuntionality of hunting Sustainable&hun/ng&and&trade?&
  19. 19. Future trends in Bushmeat research Is sustainable hunting still possible?
  20. 20. Future trends in bushmeat research Resilience& theory&and& socio? ecological& systems& Biological& models& Bio?economic& models& Spa/ally&explicit& models& Mul/disciplinary*approaches:* Economy& Ecology& Ethno&biology& Health&….& & & Innova/ve*techniques** Camera&trapping& Gene/cs& Telemetry& Bio?chemical&analysis& Modeling&tools& ….&
  21. 21. Pictures: Nathalie Van Vliet, Daniel Cornelis, Blanca Yague THANK&YOU& In&Cairns& FORESTS,&WILDLIFE&&&NUTRITION&