Participatory monitoring of the bushmeat trade in the Amazonian Trifrontier (Colombia, Peru, Brazil). Daniel Cruz-Antia, Maria Paula Quiceno, Nathalie van Vliet, Lindon Jonhson Neves & Robert Nasi

1. PARTICIPATORY MONITORING OF THE BUSHMEAT TRADE IN THE
AMAZONIAN TRIFRONTIER (COLOMBIA, PERU & BRAZIL)
Daniel Cruz-Antia, María Paula Quiceno, Nathalie van Vliet, Lindon Jonhson Neves & Robert Nasi
Innovative ways for conserving the ecosystem services provided by bushmeat
SYMPOSIA
ATBC 2014
Cairns, Australia

2. Bushmeat
and
the
rural
to
urban
transi1on
ü Bushmeat is still fundamental for the subsistence of rural
and urban communities in the Amazon, even in contexts of
rapid socioeconomic transformations à push rural
livelihoods away from the dependency on forest products.
ü Rural hunting: 150 000 tons/year (Nasi, Taber & van Vliet, 2011)
ü L a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r u r b a n b u s h m e a t
marketsàilegallity
ü Insignificant: Because of availability and prices of domestic
sources of protein (Rushton et al, 2005)
• Iquitos, Loreto - Peru (Bodmer and Lozano 2001, Claggett 1998)
• Abaetetuba, Pará-Brazil (Baía et al 2010)

3. Research
ques1ons
ü Study case in a frontier region
ü Why is data on urban bushmeat trade so scarce in the
Amazon?
• Is the trade insignificant?
• Is it invisible and difficult to assess because it occurs
in hidden markets?
• Is it because public institutions and research have
provided little efforts in quantifying its importance?
ü Describe the structure and function of the bushmeat market
chain

4. Study
area

5. Methods
ü Diversity of approaches to describe and quantify the
bushmeat market chain:
Participatory observation
Informal and semi-estructured interviews
Participatory monitoring

6. What
did
we
find?
Results

7. Stakeholders
in
the
bushmeat
market
chain
ü 195 users (115 hunters, 34 market sellers, 18 formal
restaurants and 28 informal restaurants)
113
23
2 11 8 10 2
26
HUNTERS MARKET SELLERS RESTAURANTS
(FORMAL)
RESTAURANTS
(INFORMAL)
Number of users
Men Women

8. Stakeholders
in
the
bushmeat
market
chain
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tabatinga (Bra)
Benjamin Constant (Bra)
Atalaia do Norte (Bra)
Leticia (Col)
Puerto Nariño & Loretoyacu river (Col)
Islandia (Pe)
Caballococha & Atacuari River (Pe)
Santa Rosa (Pe)
Number of users
Restaurants (Informal) Restaurants (Formal) Market sellers Hunters

9. Surveillance
(30% of users
reported to be
penalized)

10. Hunters
Diversified
hunters Specialized
hunters
%
of
bushmeat
traded 35% 90%
Trade
network Short:
friends,
neighbours
Long:
intermediaries,
traders
Type
of
meat Fresh Fresh,
smoked,
salted
Use
of
landscape Use
mosaic
of
landscape
74%
primary
forests
Mean
number
of
hunting
trips/month
4 6
ü 29% rely exclusively on hunting
ü Rural: boat, hunting trails by feet
ü Peri-urban: roadways (motorbike, bycicle, public
transportation)

11. Bushmeat
sellers
ü Intermediaries
• At ports or communities
• Cellphone, buy at low cost à USD$ 1.09/kg and
sell USD$ 3,29 / kg
•
Most
Commercialization
Average
price
of
bushmeat
kg
($USD)
form
Fresh 4,7 7,0 4,3
Salted/smoked 5,1 4,1
Fresh 5,1
Salted/smoked 5,1 3,3
Fresh 5,1 6,2 4,3
Salted/smoked 5,1 4,7
Fresh 4,8 6,2 3,6
Salted/smoked 5,1 3,6
commercialized
Cuniculus paca
Tapirus terrestris
Pecari tajacu
Mazama americana
ü Market sellers
BRAZIL COLOMBIA PERU
• Have fixed stalls that involve monthly rental fees
• Alternate with fish, chicken and clothing

12. Bushmeat
sellers
ü Food stalls & restaurants:
• In neighbourhoods, market places or touristic places
• Dish USD$ 3.50 & USD$10
• Cuniculus paca, Mazama americana and Pecari
tajacu

13. Catchment
area
and
trade
routes
ü Flows are limited by control operations and costs of
transportation and supplies, and vary according to the
availability of fish and the demand from coca workers

14. Species
composi1on
and
quan11es
of
bushmeat
ü Hunters (8)
• Mammals
60%, birds
26%, reptiles
14%.
• 485
individuals
and 13 tons in
60 days
• 5,24 tons
high level
• 7,75 tons low
level
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Cuniculus paca
Podocnemis unifilis
Crax sp
Tapirus terrestris
Lagothrix lagothricha
Crypturellus sp.
Dasyprocta fuliginosa
Tayassu pecari
Mazama americana
Dasypus sp
Aburria sp.
Pecari tajacu
Number of individuals
High-level waters Low-level waters

15. Species
composi1on
and
quan11es
of
bushmeat
ü Market places
(8)
• Mammals 74%,
birds 16%,
reptiles 10%.
• 6,7 tons in 20
days
• 3 tons Low
level
• 3,7 tons high
level
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cuniculus paca
Tapirus terrestris
Pecari tajacu
Mazama americana
Dasypus sp.
Crax globulosa
Tayassu pecari
Podocnemis unifilis
Chelonoidis denticulata
Mazama gouazoubira
Number of reports
Low level waters High level waters

16. Discussion
&
Conclusions
ü Bushmeat trade contributes to people´s livelihoods, local
economy and well-being: complete market chains (US
$686,000 year=2286 monthly min. wage=190 people)
ü Clandestinity provides the erronous idea that the volumes
traded are insignificantà6,7 tons (8 traders/20 days)
1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
kg of bushmeat/per cápita/year
Tabatinga (Brazil) -
56,21tons/52272 hab
Abaetetuba (Brazil) -
128tons/130.000hab
Franceville (Gabón)
45tons/40,000hab
ü Then bushmeat trade in Amazonian towns is not
insignificant, is instead insufficiently studied

17. Discussion
&
Conclusions
ü Opportunity to legalise and regulate the market of resilient
species, while monitoring the effect of the trade on more
vulnerable ones (and regulating in accordance).
• Paca (LC): widely distributed, large population,
unlikely to be declining.
• Collared peccary: widely distributed, habitat loss and
over-hunting (LC), requires monitoring
• Tapir: VU, habitat loss, illegal hunting and
competition with livestock
• Red brocket deer: Data Deficient
Innovative monitoring tools based on local
participation

18. Discussion
&
Conclusions
ü Market data can provide valuable information for policy
makers and managers to formulate strategies for the
sustainable use of wildlife
ü Participatory approaches are worth trying:
• It is possible to work together with the stakeholders of
the trade chain to study the activity and put in place
monitoring mechanisms.
• Trust à Cooperation