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.

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?
www.cifor.org/bushmeat2

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. 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. 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. 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. 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
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1311860
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. 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
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aibs.
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

8. 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

9. Ecological&issues&(1990s?onwards)&
Law&enforcement&and&sensi/za/on&
&(Hyp:&Hun/ng&is&criminal,&unsafe&and&
unsustainable)&
Department of Geography & Geology

10. &
"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
&
&

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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&

14. 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)&

15. 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

16. 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

17. Bushmeat*in*the*interna/onal*policy*framework*

18. Future trends in Bushmeat research
Food security and
health
Cultural Identity
Ecological foot print

19. Department of Geography & Geology
Multifuntionality of hunting
Sustainable&hun/ng&and&trade?&

20. Future trends in Bushmeat research
Is sustainable hunting still possible?

21. 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&
….&

22. Pictures: Nathalie
Van Vliet, Daniel
Cornelis, Blanca
Yague
THANK&YOU&
In&Cairns&
FORESTS,&WILDLIFE&&&NUTRITION&