Bushmeat hunting around Lomami National Park 429
Prices per kg are likely to be underestimated, as carcasses sold could have been juvenile, or mostly females. Secondly, our estimates represent a minimum volume of bushmeat traded in Kindu as we calculated annual volumes exclud- ing the closed season, and we only surveyed c. 50% of the vendors in the market. Another methodological caveat is that we used only focus group discussions at the village level. Such focus groups may not be representative of the whole population in a region, and results should not be gener- alized (Cruz-Garcia et al., 2019). In any future research, fo- cus group discussions could be combined with other com- plementary methods such as individual interviews and indi- vidual ranking exercises. Further insights could be gained from interviewing major retailers and foreign hunters.
Implications
Our findings indicate that bushmeat household consump- tion and trade include several species of conservation con- cern, a matter that requires intervention. The first issue to address is the misconception about which species can be legally hunted in the Park’s buffer zone. Lomami National Park was created relatively recently (in July 2016) and local communities appear to be ignorant of hunting restrictions in the buffer zone. Before the Park was created, several awareness raising campaigns discussed the Endangered sta- tus of the bonobo and the fact that it should not be hunted, which seems to have reduced the numbers of specimens openly traded in Kindu (we did not observe this species in Kindu during our market survey, but it was reported there in 2009; Hart, 2009). It is possible that the bonobo is still traded secretly, but we were unable to confirm this. New awareness campaigns are needed to clarify which species can legally be hunted in the buffer zone. The widespread use of firearms enables hunters to target
specific species and individuals, whereas traditional hunting with snares is opportunistic and less targeted. This opens opportunities for awareness raising and education amongst hunters, particularly with respect to primates. Because they are diurnal, primates are mostly hunted during the day (Macdonald et al., 2012), whereas other animals such as dui- kers are often hunted at night. During daylight hours, pri- mate species can easily be identified by sight, and hunters could avoid targeting threatened species. Awareness cam- paigns should be linked with the development and enforce- ment of hunting regulations that benefit local, not foreign hunters. If licensed local hunters could be given a quota that they are responsible for, it would be in their interest to not exceed the quota and to report unlicensed hunters, to help secure the long-term persistence of the wildlife po- pulations on which their livelihoods depend (Macdonald et al., 2012). Increased collaboration with traditional authorities, who have considerable influence and command local respect,
could also help reinforce traditional rules forbidding hunt- ing of certain species, such as pangolins. Drawing on the capacity of such authorities to restrict access to markets and firearms has provided encouraging results in other areas of DRC (de Merode et al., 2004). Furthermore, greater control of bushmeat trade is needed in Kindu and other towns near Lomami (e.g. Dikanjo, Lokando, Bafundo). Given the limited number of roads accessible by motor vehicles in the study area, road checkpoints could be useful for moni- toring bushmeat trade and enforcing restrictions. Beyond the species of conservation concern, several
other species were perceived as declining by vendors in Kindu, but not by villagers. It is possible that villagers only highlighted the species they thought were close to extinction (elephant, bongo, buffalo), and not those whose populations had declined to a lesser extent. It has been sug- gested that hunting of resilient species such as the blue dui- ker and African brush-tailed porcupine could be allowed, but that other species such as the red river hog and small diurnal monkeys require more conservation attention (van Vliet & Nasi, 2008). Future biodiversity surveys in the Park should focus on the species mentioned as declining in Kindu but not in the villages, to clarify population trends. Our results indicate that around Lomami National Park
bushmeat is used as food and as a source of income. Access to protein from domestic animals is limited: goats, sheep, pigs and poultry are rare, and there is no formal livestock husbandry or veterinary provision. The lack of cattle rearing in the region is attributed to the presence of the tsetse fly, which transmits trypanosomiasis. For preferences to de- velop (e.g. for domestic meat), a product must first be rea- sonably familiar (Turrell, 1998). Although the consumption of domestic meat is currently rare in the study area, most villagers reported an interest in rearing goats, pigs and poultry, if funds and training could be provided to facilitate this. In Kahuzi-Biega National Park the rearing of cavies has been successfully promoted to meet household demands for protein and to generate income (Thierry et al., 2018). The need to support domestic meat production is included in the National Bushmeat Strategy for DRC (ICCN, 2009) and the technical expertise is available, but access to loans to help people start rearing animals, and support such as veterinary care, are needed (van Vliet et al., 2012). Cater- pillar rearing could also be considered as an alternative source of protein. For example, the caterpillars of the African moth Bunaeopsis aurantiaca are highly nutritious (433 kcal/ 100 g; Muvundja et al., 2013). They occur naturally on the sugar plum tree Uapaca guineensis, which is abundant in Lomami National Park. Caterpillars can be smoked and dried, facilitating storage and transport. Bushmeat trade around Lomami National Park current-
ly appears to be limited to adjacent towns and the city of Kindu. But the situation is likely to change if roads around Kindu and Lomami National Park are upgraded and Kindu
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
