Among its findings, the report found that wild meat is often a key use and a major driver for legal and illegal hunting, particularly of ungulates and primates, and especially during times of conflict or famine and in the course of land use change. This has led to drastic declines and extinctions of several migratory terrestrial mammal populations.

• 70% of hunted CMS terrestrial mammal species are used for wild meat consumption.
  67 of the 105 species studied were recorded as hunted. Of these 67 species, the largest intended use (47 species) was for wild meat consumption. Other hunting purposes identified were for cultural reasons, medicinal use, human-wildlife conflict, unintentional take and sport/trophy hunting/fashion.

• Taking for domestic use is a larger concern than international trade for most CMS terrestrial species
  Global attention to wildlife taking has largely focused on international trade. However, the report found that the vast majority of taking of CMS species for wild meat consumption is driven by direct use or domestic trade. This has major implications for international and national efforts to protect vulnerable and endangered species.
  Overall, 34 of 99 species with an IUCN Red List Assessment were reported as used at the subsistence level (direct use), 27 were traded nationally, and 22 were traded internationally, when all types of use were considered. However, when only meat for consumption was considered, 27 species (out of 99) were reported as consumed for subsistence, 10 species for national wild meat trade and only two species for international wild meat trade.

CMS Executive Secretary Amy Fraenkel noted, “This report indicates for the first time a clear and urgent need to focus on domestic use of protected migratory species of wild animals, across their range. We need to ensure that domestic laws and enforcement efforts are able to tackle this major threat to CMS species.”

The Taking of Animals for Wild Meat Consumption Significantly Increases the Risk of Future Zoonotic Diseases

The report also examined the link between the taking of species for wild meat with the risk of zoonotic diseases.

• There is strong evidence that zoonotic disease outbreaks are linked to human Wild meat taking and consumption has been identified as the direct and causative agent for the spill-over into humans for Monkeypox virus, SARS, Sudan Ebola virus and Zaire Ebola virus, with subsequent human-to-human transmission.
• In total, 60 zoonotic viral pathogens were reported as hosted by the 105 migratory species
• Encroachment into remaining intact habitats through infrastructure and economic activities have made vast new areas accessible for wild meat taking, thus increasing the zoonotic risk by bringing humans in contact with hitherto undisturbed host and pathogen

“As we seek to shift towards sustainable global food systems, it is critical that the use of wild species for food, is both legal and sustainable. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that the overexploitation of nature comes at a heavy cost. We urgently need to depart from business- as- usual. In so doing, we can save many species from the brink of extinction and protect ourselves from future outbreaks of zoonotic diseases,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme.

The study cited a number of factors for the unsustainable taking. First, national legislation and regulations may lack clarity or are outdated, not reflecting the actual requirements of environmental factors, population traits and dynamics of the species concerned. Second, poor enforcement is a key driver of unsustainable use in several regions. Third, civil conflict and land use change can drive increased taking for wild meat. Fourth, migratory animals cross countries and regions with a wide variety of differing laws and enforcement approaches, increasing the risk of unsustainable take at different stages of their migration. Finally, growing urbanization and increased sale of wild meat as a luxury product is an additional pressure on protected animals.

The report also found that seasonal migration patterns mean migratory species are a particularly susceptible target for hunters, poachers and other consumers due to the well-known timing of the species’ arrival in a particular area.

It is important to note that wildlife contributes to the food security, health, income, jobs and cultural identity of many rural economies and for some of the world’s most vulnerable Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). Any policy response needs to consider such uses, as well as the drivers of food insecurity.

Most Species in the Study Are Reported as being Threatened by Hunting.

Hunting (for all purposes) is reported as a key threat to the survival of many species. Excluding bats (Chiroptera), the study finds that 98% (41 out of 42) of the CMS species with an IUCN Red List Assessment are threatened by hunting. Hunting threatens 95% (21 out of 22) of those that are classified by IUCN as Endangered, Critically Endangered, or Extinct in the Wild.

The study documented linkages between hunting and the declining population trends of several species. 77% (40 out of 52) of the CMS species that were assessed by IUCN as having decreasing populations were recorded as threatened by hunting in this study. For instance, most migratory ungulates still extant in the wild have experienced significant population declines that can be attributed to hunting. All chimpanzee subspecies and three of the four gorilla subspecies reported as significantly threatened by hunting are also experiencing large population declines. Overall, the assessment of the report finds that taking has a direct impact on the populations of more than half (58 out of 105) of the studied species, with high impacts for at least 42% (40 out of 105) of them.

The study also found that there is insufficient data for a conclusive assessment on the taking of bats, which make up half of the CMS terrestrial mammal species studied. This could signal that they are either infrequently hunted, or that their hunting is being underreported.

Most Hunted Species Are Used for Wild Meat Consumption

Wild meat is often reported to be the key use of terrestrial migratory species and a significant motive behind both legal and illegal hunting. This is of particular relevance for migratory ungulates and primates that suffer most in the context of human-related disasters such as conflicts and famines, but also in the case of land use change. The report found that of all the CMS terrestrial mammal species that were recorded as hunted, 70% (47 out of 67) are used for wild meat consumption. Illegal hunting for meat is the primary threat to three Gorilla subspecies, Western Lowland Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), Grauer’s Gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) and the Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli).

Carnivore and elephant species are hunted for many different uses and disaggregating the impact of wild meat hunting from hunting for trophies or human-wildlife conflict is often not possible.

Demand for Wild Meat as a Luxury Item Expected to Increase with the Growth of Urbanization

While wild meat can be an important source of nutrition for rural communities, wild meat does not often play a significant role in food security for urban dwellers, for whom it is a luxury item. Yet as urban populations grow, so does the demand for wild meat. Even low per capita consumption rates can add up to large total quantities of wild meat consumed, and urban demand is fueling increasing unsustainable offtakes in surrounding areas, contributing to heavier pressure on wildlife and a larger threat to the food supply of wildlife-dependent rural communities.

Available data shows that, for instance, the straw-colored bat (Eidolon helvum) in west and central Africa, and the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) in Cameroon and Nigeria have been available in large numbers across urban markets. Better transportation, availability of firearms and high financial incentives are amongst the drivers of increased urban access to wild meat.

Protection of CMS Terrestrial Mammal Species is Inconsistent

Most CMS terrestrial mammal species are protected to varying degrees under current laws, with levels of protection fluctuating across species and countries. In many tropical countries, urgent reform of current hunting legislation is needed. This includes subsistence hunting practices that are often incompatible with hunting regulations.

From several case studies, two themes emerged: first, while CMS species may be protected under national and international laws, in many countries enforcement capacity and effort is low, and unregulated hunting therefore continues unabated. Secondly, species populations that experienced sharp declines due to over-hunting have recovered after legal protection and the enforcement of laws.

Recommendations and Implications for the Future:

• Greater attention to domestic use and trade of CMS species is needed to address threats to conservation;
• National hunting legislation and regulations should be reviewed and updated as needed;
• Capacity for monitoring and enforcement should be examined and strengthened;
• The drivers contributing to the illegal or unsustainable use of wildlife for domestic consumption should be further identified and addressed;
• Understanding more about the spillover risks associated with wild meat use and trade, and the factors that might increase or decrease these risks, must be an immediate priority for wild meat research;
• Comparable and collatable data on hunting offtakes and species abundance should be gathered on all the species studied to enable more complete assessments of impacts of hunting for wildlife consumption and trade; and
• Additional international cooperation will be needed to address wild meat taking of migratory species, whose ranges span multiple countries.

Link to the Report: https://www.cms.int/publication/wild-meat-report
Source: Press release Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Photo by Edmond Dounias/CIFOR

The post Wild meat consumption significantly increases risk of zoonotic disease and poses major threat to terrestrial species – new UN Report appeared first on African Conservation Foundation.

Despite the pandemic, and despite the causes of this zoonosis, South Africa is preparing to expand and intensify captive breeding of wild species and sell their meat in the food markets. This is an alarming turning point in the nation’s immense biological heritage management policies. The plan was published in the Official Gazette on 28 February in a proposal to revise the Meat Safety Act, the law that has regulated meat production since 2000. The proposal is to expand the number of non-domestic but edible species “that can be slaughtered as food for humans or for animal consumption”.

The list contains 104 species, including: zebras, red hartebeest, wildebeest, springbok, dik dik, lechwe, kudu, duiker, gemsbok, eland, impala, rhinos (black and white), hippos, giraffes, elephants and crocodiles. The proposal also points out that “this scheme includes animals that are listed as endangered species, in accordance with conservation measures, and therefore their slaughter for both human and animal consumption must be in line with the most relevant conservation indications”.

For some time, conservation and breeding have been going on the same track in South Africa.

The move by the Government, in which the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture move along a concerted path dotted with legal gaps, has not surprised those in South Africa working in the conservation and in the wildlife farming industry, which supplies trophy animals to hunters and lion bones to Chinese and South East Asian buyers.

In May 2019, the previous Minister of Agriculture had passed an amendment to a 1998 law, the Animal Improvement Act (AIA), to reclassify 33 wildlife species as farm animals, including lions, cheetahs, rhinos and zebras, without public consultation.  This allow these animals to be used for breeding, slaughtering and genetic manipulation in farms scattered across the country, the notorious wildlife farms.

As a result, these wildlife farms can use artificial insemination and genetic manipulation to obtain animals with special characteristics, for example faster, larger or of a different colour. These animals are highly sought after by hunters, who seek out-of-norm trophies for their collections.

The government of South Africa has decided to turn towards a complete “wildlife economy” where wild animals are a raw material on which to plan profits. South Africa has now taken a path of use of its fauna which is transforming the country into a genetic laboratory in the name of “sustainable development”. In the midst of an increasingly serious economic crisis, while education levels in the country are also decreasing, the government turns to extraction of resources at all costs for an immediate profit.

While China, on February 24, decided to ban wildlife trade by also asking CITES for more stringent measures, South Africa seems to want to take a completely opposite path, in defiance not only of the precautionary principle, but of international concerns  Nobody knows how many of the animals on the Chinese markets came from South Africa and the country is preparing to expand a market that hides unknown oublic health dangers.

For this reason, on March 21, which is Human Rights Day in South Africa, the EMS Foundation together with about sixty other organizations and institutions will demonstrate in Cape Town to ask the Minister of the Environment Barbara Creecy to close the meat industry and to take a position against Covid-19 and against the consumption of wild meat. People will be virtually united for animal, environmental and human rights, which are strictly related.

Please find the full story here: La Stampa (in Italian)
Author: Elisabetta Corrà

The post South Africa wants to promote wildlife consumption appeared first on African Conservation Foundation.

• A new study has found that hornbills, vultures and eagles are being hunted for bushmeat in Cameroon in much greater numbers than previously thought.
• Researchers estimate that people living around the proposed Ebo National Park in Cameroon’s Littoral region consumed an average of 29 hornbills and eight raptors per month.
• But they remain unsure how the current levels of hunting are affecting the bird populations, given that so little is known about the latter.

Hornbills, vultures and eagles are being hunted for bushmeat in Cameroon in much greater numbers than previously thought, a new study has found.

Previous research has shown that relatively few birds are sold in Cameroon’s markets compared to mammals and reptiles. However, market surveys can be biased toward commercially valuable wildlife, missing animals that are killed by hunters for consumption in their hunting camps, Robin C. Whytock, a doctoral researcher at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and his colleagues found in a study published in 2016. Whytock’s team surveyed discarded animal remains at hunting camps in the Ebo forest (proposed Ebo National Park) in Cameroon’s Littoral region, and found that people were hunting about three hornbills every month on average.

But that seems to have been an underestimate, Whytock concluded in a recent study published in Biological Conservation.

Through a survey of 240 men from 19 villages around the Ebo forest, Whytock and his colleagues estimated that people in the region were consuming an average of 29 hornbills and eight raptors per month.

The researchers worry that large birds like hornbills could be especially sensitive to hunting since these birds reproduce slowly and have slow population growth. But they’re not sure how the current levels of hunting affect Ebo forest’s birds.

“It is difficult to quantify the implications of these numbers without having population estimates for the affected species,” Whytock told Mongabay. “My guess is that hornbills and raptors especially are declining in Cameroon’s unprotected forests, but we need to do more work on this.”

However, identifying the number of birds that are killed is the first step to understanding how bushmeat hunting can affect birds like hornbills and eagles, Whytock added.

“I think birds such as crowned eagles are particularly threatened by hunting in Cameroon, both because of direct persecution and because their prey base has been depleted by hunting,” he said in a statement. “These and other similar large-bodied birds that reproduce slowly are therefore a conservation priority.”

The team also found that bird hunting in Ebo forest peaked during the dry season, from February to March, with another peak in June. This trend is concerning, Whytock said, because many birds begin to breed during the dry season in Cameroon, and their “populations are at their most vulnerable to unsustainable offtake.”

The researchers were also interested in finding out if hunting behavior varied with levels of education. However, those who hunt can be hesitant to talk about their hunting activities because of fear of prosecution for the often illegal nature of their activities.

So the researchers deployed two methods of questioning. They asked 675 people direct questions to find out how many of their meals in the past week contained meat from different wild species. They also used an indirect method of questioning called unmatched count technique that grants anonymity for people’s identities and responses, and improves the chances of getting more truthful answers to potentially incriminatory questions, such as those about hunting activities.

The results of the surveys were unexpected, Whytock said.

The indirect line of questioning revealed that better-educated hunters tended to hunt more. But direct questioning showed the opposite: better-educated hunters reported consuming fewer wild birds. This suggests that without the cover of anonymity, they were inclined to give evasive answers.

“I was surprised that the indirect questioning revealed bird hunting was higher among better educated hunters, even though we did know anecdotally that some of the most prolific hunters are relatively well-educated,” Whytock said. “The result shows the value of accounting for ‘social desirability bias’ when conducting questionnaire surveys, as people will try to hide illegal behaviour.”

Overall, hornbills, such as the black-casqued hornbill (Ceratogymna atrata) and the white-thighed hornbill (Bycanistes albotibialis), were among the most consumed birds, followed by raptors like the palm-nut vulture (Gypohierax angolensis) and a few eagles.

However, given how little is currently known about the population status of forest birds in Cameroon, there’s an urgent need to assess their populations and quantify how many are being hunted, the authors write in the study.

“Pending further assessment in other locations and in light of other threats such as habitat loss, we recommend that palm-nut vulture, black casqued hornbill and white-thighed hornbill are re-classified as Data Deficient (from Least Concern) by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species,” the researchers add.

Featured image: Black-casqued hornbill. Photo by Bernard DUPONT via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0).
Article published by Shreya Dasgupta
Source: https://news.mongabay.com

Citation:

• Whytock, R.C. et al. (2018). Quantifying the scale and socioeconomic drivers of bird hunting in Central African forest communities. Biological Conservation. 218 (2018) 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.034.

The post Bushmeat hunting threatens hornbills and raptors in Cameroon’s forests, study finds appeared first on African Conservation Foundation.

Credible scientific evidence has linked persistent decline and local extinction of numerous species across Africa, Asia, and Latin America to hunting for bushmeat and especially commercial hunting supplying urban bushmeat markets. The extent of wildlife depletion is in many locations so severe that it has been referred to as the ‘empty forest syndrome’ and the ‘bushmeat crisis’. Commercial bushmeat hunting is not only seen as a threat to biodiversity but also as compromising the livelihood security of rural households relying on bushmeat as a source of protein and income.

“The rapidly growing literature about the role of bushmeat in rural livelihoods is based on relatively few case studies characterised by small samples, limited geographical coverage and methodological pluralism,” associate professor Martin R. Nielsen at the Department for Food and Resource Economics, who led the new studies, points out. He continues: “This constrains the synthesis of findings. Even more problematic, study sites often appear purposefully selected for high levels of hunting and bushmeat trade, which means that available empirical evidence is unlikely to be representative of hunting in most locations”.

Randomly selected study sites

In an attempt to overcome this bias, Nielsen and his colleagues have used the global Poverty Environment Network (PEN) database that provides a unique opportunity to develop a broader understanding of the economic importance of bushmeat in rural livelihoods. The PEN data was collected in just under 8,000 randomly selected households in 333 communities in 24 tropical and sub-tropical countries across three continents. Most importantly, sites were selected with no consideration of the level of bushmeat hunting.

The studies find that 39 percent of the sampled households hunts bushmeat but that this only contributes on average 2 percent of total household income – of which own consumption accounts for 89 percent. Reliance on bushmeat is highest among the poor and inversely related to reliance on domestic animal income.

Seasonally, reliance on bushmeat relates inversely to other incomes, suggesting that bushmeat hunting acts as a gap-filler when other incomes are low. On the community level bushmeat is more important in smaller more remote communities in the middle of the cash income distribution, with few domestic animals, and in countries characterised by poor governance and rising costs of living.

Food security will benefit wildlife conservation

“The fact that hunting is of low economic importance but widespread and mostly for subsistence suggests that bushmeat is important mainly in rural households’ diets”, explains Martin R. Nielsen. “The results lead us to believe that bushmeat is likely to be most important as a source of protein and micronutrients that are unavailable to rural households through their domestic animals and staple crop production,” he elaborates.

The studies conclude that household’s food and nutritional security should be taken into account in biodiversity conservation planning rather than those topics being addressed separately. “Our results further imply that these objectives are not necessarily conflicting. On the contrary, the effectiveness of wildlife conservation efforts is likely to be enhanced if rural food and nutritional security is improved,” Martin R. Nielsen concludes.

Find the scientific articles here in
Biological Conservation
and Ecological Economics.

Source:

University of Copenhagen
Department of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO)

Contact

Martin R. Nielsen
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen
mobile +45 22 28 08 47
office +45 35 33 17 26
mrni@ifro.ku.dk

The post New research questions assumptions about bushmeat hunting in the Global South appeared first on African Conservation Foundation.

Within these areas bird populations decline an average of 58 percent and mammal populations by 83 percent. Also, the researchers indicate that commercial hunting has a greater impact than subsistence hunting, and that the pressure of hunting is higher in places that have good connections to larger cities where bushmeat may be traded.

The impact of hunting proved greater than the researchers expected initially. “Through this study, we know that left only 17 percent of mammal numbers and 42 percent of the original bird numbers in hunted areas,” says Ana Benítez López, who works at the department of Environmental Science at Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. She led this study and cooperated with researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), the universities of Wageningen and Utrecht in the Netherlands and a colleague from the School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex.

The researchers synthesised 176 studies to quantify hunting-induced declines of mammal and bird populations across the tropics of Central and South America, Africa and Asia.

Hunting pressure surrounding villages and roads

“There are several factors contributing to the decline of animal populations in the tropics, such as destruction and fragmentation of habitat, over-hunting,” says Benítez López. “Habitat Destruction can be identified from the air with remote sensing, but the impact of hunting can only be established on the ground. We wanted to find a systematic and consistent way to estimate the impact of hunting in the tropics. We started with the assumption that people are hunting in circles around their town or around the entrance to a forest. In the direct vicinity of such access points, hunting pressure is highest and the number of species the lowest. With increasing distance the animal population increases, until the point that there is no effect of hunting anymore. We call this speciesdepletion distance, which we have quantified in our analysis. In this way, we can for the first time map and quantify the decline of species caused by hunting. “

Not only cuddly species

The most innovative aspect of this Science study is that many existing, local studies are combined providing for the first time an overall impression of the magnitude of the impact of hunting and that the study includes all species. Not only the big and cuddly species, but also birds and rodents. Mammals are more vulnerable and have a higher chance to disappear, according to Benítez López.

“This is because they are bigger, there is more to eat. They are more valuable – this justifies more investment in time and resources. The larger mammal, the longer the journey and the bigger the effort.”

The increased demand for wildlife, both in rural and urban areas, has already led to the extinction of large species near the villages. Hunters now have to make longer trips. For commercially interesting species such as elephants and gorillas, hunters are willing to trek even further, because revenues are higher.

Sanctuary offers no protection

Even in protected areas like wildlife sanctuaries, the bird and mammal populations are declining as a result of hunting, the scientists discovered. “We urgently need to devise better strategies for sustainable management of hunting. Both in protected and unprotected areas,” says Benítez López. “For example, by better monitoring the activity of hunters and by strengthening anti-poaching brigades for law enforcement.”

A. Benítez-López e.a: The impact of hunting on tropical mammal and bird populations. Science April 14 2017. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaj1891

The post Hunting responsible for sharp decline in tropical wildlife and birds with 83% and 58% appeared first on African Conservation Foundation.