430 R. Batumike et al.
airport opens to international flights, as currently planned by the government. Improved infrastructure will probably increase not only economic prosperity but also the human population of Kindu, and therefore the demand for meat protein. Although some authors have argued that so-called westernization of taste preferences in Africa’s urban areas could decrease the demand for bushmeat, which may be considered ‘dirty meat’ or a sign of cultural primitivity by urban communities (Luiselli et al., 2019), recent studies from DRC suggest urban populations consume bushmeat not only because they lack access to cheap alternatives but also because they prefer the taste (van Vliet et al., 2012). The same study from Kisangani showed new areas being ex- ploited for bushmeat after road infrastructure improved (van Vliet et al., 2012). Our survey captures the situation at a specific point in
time, and research for Kisangani demonstrated that species commercialized, total biomass and prices of bushmeat vary over time, with changes related to overhunting in some areas, conflict, and alternative sources of protein becoming more affordable (van Vliet et al., 2017). Nevertheless, our survey provides an important baseline for future monitor- ing and can help inform management interventions for Lomami National Park and its surroundings.
Conclusions
This study confirms the importance of bushmeat for local populations around Lomami National Park and in Kindu city, where we estimated .40,000 carcasses of 18 species, with a retail value of USD 725,000, are traded annually. Such case studies are important for designing management interventions at the local and regional levels, and can be used to assess change over time and promote future re- search. Lomami National Park was created to safeguard the outstanding biodiversity of the study area (e.g. the lesula Cercopithecus lomamiensis, endemic to this Park) and to facilitate sustainable development for communities living near the protected area. Our findings, recently shared with study participants and conservation organizations working in the area, will help inform the management interventions needed to achieve these goals.
Acknowledgements We thank all study participants, especially the village chiefs, who helped organize the focus group discussions, our field assistants and translators P. Kinyama and E. Bushiri, the managers of Lomami National Park, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit office and Deutsche Forstservice GmbH team in Kindu, and two anonymous reviewers for their cri- tiques. This research was funded by The Rufford Foundation, UK. GI was supported by the Percy Sladen Memorial Fund.
Author contributions Conception and design: BR, GI, ACS; data collection: BR, CU; data analysis: all authors; writing: GI, ACS; revi- sion: all authors.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards. Because it was conducted outside a protected area, no official research permit was required, but Park managers were in- formed and were supportive of the research. We informed local au- thorities before starting our research and obtained prior informed consent from all study participants, who participated on a voluntary basis. Interviewees’ responses were kept anonymous. After we com- pleted the study, we shared a non-academic report with both commu- nities and Park managers.
References
ABERNETHY, K.A., COAD, L., TAYLOR, G., LEE, M.E. & MAISELS,F. (2013) Extent and ecological consequences of hunting in Central African rainforests in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368, 20120303.
ALLEBONE-WEBB, S.M., KÜMPEL, N.F., RIST, J., COWLISHAW, G., ROWCLIFFE, J.M. & MILNER-GULLAND, E.J. (2011) Use of market data to assess bushmeat hunting sustainability in Equatorial Guinea. Conservation Biology, 25, 597–606.
AVILA, E., TAGG, N.,WILLIE, J.,MBOHLI, D., FARFAN, M.A.,VARGAS, J.M. et al. (2019) Interpreting long-term trends in bushmeat harvest in southeast Cameroon. Acta Oecologica, 9, 57–65.
BENNETT, E., EVES, H., ROBINSON,J.&WILKIE,D. (2002) Why is eating bushmeat a biodiversity crisis? Conservation in Practice, 3, 28–29.
BRODIE, J.F. & GIBBS,H. (2009) Bushmeat hunting as climate threat. Science, 326, 364–365.
COWLISHAW, G.,MENDELSON,S. & ROWCLIFFE, J.M. (2005) Evidence for post-depletion sustainability in a mature bushmeat market. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 460–468.
CRUZ-GARCIA, G.S., CUBILLOS, M.V., TORRES-VITOLAS, C.,HARVEY C.A., SHACKLETON, C.M., SCHRECKENBERG,K. et al. (2019)He says, she says: ecosystem services and gender among Indigenous communities in the Colombian Amazon. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100921.
DE MERODE, E., HOMEWOOD,K.&COWLISHAW,G.(2004) The value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural households living in extreme poverty in Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological Conservation, 118, 573–581.
DUPAIN, J., NACKONEY, J., VARGAS, J.M., JOHNSON, P.J., FARFAN, M.A., BOFASO, M. et al. (2012) Bushmeat characteristics vary with catchment conditions in a Congo market. Biological Conservation, 146, 32–40.
FA, J.E. (2007) Bushmeat markets – white elephants or red herrings? In Bushmeat and Livelihoods:Wildlife Management and Poverty Reduction (eds G. Davies & D. Brown), pp. 47–60. Conservation Science and Practice, Volume 2. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
FA, J.E.,GARCIA YUSTE, J.E.&CASTELO,R.(2000) Bushmeat markets on Bioko Island as a measure of hunting pressure. Conservation Biology, 14, 1602–1613.
FA, J.E., PERES, C.A. &MEEUWIG,J.(2002) Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. Conservation Biology, 16, 232–237.
FA, J.E., CURRIE,D.&MEEUWIG, J.J. (2003) Bushmeat and food security in the Congo Basin: linkages between wildlife and people’s future. Environmental Conservation, 30, 71–78.
FA, J.E., OLIVERO, J., FARFÁN, M.Á., MÁRQUEZ, A.L., DUARTE, J., NACKONEY, J. et al. (2015) Correlates of bushmeat in markets and depletion of wildlife. Conservation Biology, 29, 805–815.
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
