Bushmeat hunting around Lomami National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo RODRI GUE BAT UMI K E,GERARD IMANI,CHRISTI A N UROM and AIDA CUNI -SANCHEZ
Abstract Formost of the Democratic Republic of the Congo quantitative data on bushmeat exploitation are scarce. We conducted focus group discussions on preferred species for household consumption and income generation in 24 villages around Lomami National Park, created in 2016. We also carried out a bushmeat market survey in Kindu, a major town in the study area, to estimate annual sales vo- lumes and retail values. Villagers reported household con- sumption of 22 mammal species, with the most important being the African brush-tailed porcupine, Peters’s duiker, bay duiker and red river hog. The latter three were also the most important for income generation. A greater number of smaller species were consumed at the household level, compared with those traded. A total of 17 mammal and one reptile species were traded in Kindu. Those traded in greater numbers were the African brush-tailed porcupine, blue and bay duiker, red river hog, red-tailed monkey and the sitatunga. We estimated .40,000 carcasses were traded in Kindu annually, with a retail value of USD 725,
000.Sev- eral species of conservation concern, such as the bonobo, were mentioned or observed. Few rodents and numerous large animals were traded in Kindu, suggesting resources have not yet been depleted. However, both villagers and urban vendors perceived a decline of many species and reported an increase in the use of firearms and the number of foreign hunters in the area. Among other interventions, we discuss how local communities could be encouraged to help preserve wildlife in the Park’s buffer zone.
Keywords Bushmeat consumption, bushmeat trade, com- munities, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lomami National Park, rainforest, wildlife conservation
Supplementary material for this article is available at
doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001017
RODRIGUE BATUMIKE Département de Sciences de l’Environnement, Université du Cinquantenaire Lwiro, Kabare, Suk-Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo
GERARD IMANI (Corresponding author) Biology Department, Université Officielle de Bukavu, Bukavu, Democratic Republic of the Congo E-mail
imanigerard2006@yahoo.fr
CHRISTIAN UROM Biology Department, Université de Kisangani, Kisangani, Democratic Republic of the Congo
AIDACUNI-SANCHEZ (Corresponding author,
orcid.org/0000-0001-8619-1095) York Institute for Tropical Ecosystems, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK E-mail
a.cunisanchez@
york.ac.uk
Received 29 March 2019. Revision requested 12 June 2019. Accepted 16 August 2019. First published online 5 March 2020.
Introduction I
n tropical forests, where wildlife biomass is lower than in more open habitats such as savannahs, overhunting of
wild animals for their meat, often referred to as bushmeat, may lead to the depletion of local populations and can con- tribute to the extinction of some species (Abernethy et al., 2013). In Africa rising demand for bushmeat, related to human population growth and increased affluence, has led to a dramatic increase in bushmeat commercialization and hunting rates, threatening the populations of many targeted species (Bennett et al., 2002). Overhunting can have cascad- ing effects in an ecosystem, affecting species not targeted for bushmeat (e.g. large carnivores) and altering forest structure and composition because large mammals and birds are im- portant dispersers of trees with large seeds (Wright et al., 2000; Maisels et al., 2001). Because of these cascading effects, overhunting can also affect forest carbon stocks (Brodie & Gibbs, 2009). In Africa unsustainable hunting of wild animals has been identified as the greatest threat to protected areas (Schulze et al., 2018). In all Central African countries bushmeat is a significant
source of animal protein and is important for food security (Fa et al., 2003). It is also often the only source of iron and fat (Siren &Machoa, 2008; Golden et al., 2011). A recent study from Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) showed that both wealthy and impoverished urban households consume bushmeat for a variety of reasons, in- cluding low cost and taste preference (van Vliet et al., 2015). Apart from being a crucial source of food and nutrients, bushmeat can also be an important source of income for rural communities (Fa et al., 2003; Mbete et al., 2011). Un- sustainable hunting of wild animals can thus negatively affect the nutrition, food security and livelihoods of the people that depend on them. Two approaches are often used to indirectly infer the sustainability of bushmeat hunting in a given area: hunt- ing profiles (e.g. distance travelled on hunting trips), and market profiles (e.g. the range of species traded and price changes; Fa et al., 2000). In West and Central Africa the latter approach has gained attention because markets are highly visible (sale of most bushmeat is not illegal) and it is relatively easy to collect data on the animals for sale (Fa, 2007; Taylor et al., 2015). In areas with higher hunting pressures fewer large-bodied animals are sold at markets, and generally there is greater species diversity of the bush- meat on offer (Cowlishaw et al., 2005; Fa, 2007). This is be- cause smaller-bodied species such as large rodents and small
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2021, 55(3), 421–431 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001017
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
