Bushmeat trade in northern Ghana 225


compared to the wet season. In the case of frogs, the ob- served seasonality in carcass numbers is probably a reflec- tion of the species’ behaviour. Several of these frog species, including H. occipitalis, accumulate at waterbodies during the dry season when water levels have declined, facilitating collection in large quantities (Mohneke et al., 2010). The seasonality associated with hunters’ livelihood portfolios is also likely to be a key factor. Hunting effort and bushmeat trade volumes are frequently linked to farming seasons, being lower during periods when farming commitments are high (Schulte-Herbruggen et al., 2013). Most hunters in Ghana are primarily farmers (Sackey, 2014) and are busi- est with farm work during the wet season. This aligns with trade volumes falling during the wet season, when farming commitments are high, and peaking in the driest months (February–April) when farming commitments are low. The observation of seasonal trade fluctuations was con- firmed by interviews with bushmeat traders who revealed they engaged in farming to supplement their income. Seasonality could also be relevant to certain practices in the study area. Burning of vegetation in the dry season, which opens up the terrain and facilitates hunting, is typical in the north (Aalangdong, 2010).


Prices of bushmeat species


The price of bushmeat, although variable, was generally higher than those of alternative animal protein such as fish and beef. This is surprising because in rural areas bush- meat is typically cheaper than alternatives (van Vliet et al., 2012; Nielsen &Meilby, 2015). Possible explanations for this difference are that bushmeat is becoming scarce or that har- vesting costs are high, thereby increasing prices (Cowlishaw et al., 2005). Pricecould also influencethe prevalence of frogsin


local markets. Although seasonal abundance is probably a key determinant of frog supply, the relatively low price and high profit margins for frogs could also play a role. Frogs were amongst the cheapest meats, with only beef being cheaper per kg. Frogs are also small, making their portion size affordable. Our study area falls within the region with the highest poverty rates in Ghana and with some of the lowest consumption expenditures, and thus it is unsurprising that a cheap form of protein such as frog meat is traded abundantly. Furthermore, conversa- tions with traders revealed that those who sold frog meat made a substantial profit despite its low price, probably be- cause of frogs being relatively low-cost and easy to harvest by hand (unlike other species for which harvesting could require access to firearms). Price probably also has an effect on the form in which


some bushmeat is sold. For example, bushmeat species that are more expensive per kg, such as giant rat, were traded in small, affordable portion sizes, whereas cheaper species,


such as monkeys, were sold in larger portion sizes. This could also be related to monkey species tending to be trans- ported to the more valuable southern markets. It is therefore difficult to disentangle the interacting effects of affordability for local people, preferences in different parts of Ghana and cost-effectiveness of transportation on the overall relation- ship between price and the form in which bushmeat is sold. These price dynamics highlight how the preferences and behaviours of market participants can shape the species profile of bushmeat markets. Other studies have highlight- ed similar dynamics. For example, a study in Equatorial Guinea suggested that profitability was an important factor whereby trade in certain locations comprised those species that generated the most profits for traders, whereas in other locations species that maximized returns for hunters were favoured (Allebone-Webb et al., 2011). The fact that high- priced products at the markets in our study area were also from those species known to be favoured by consumers in urban centres (e.g. helmeted guinea fowl, grasscutter; McNamara et al., 2019; H.N.K. Sackey, pers. obs., 2019, 2020) suggests that similar factors could be important. Considering that most bushmeat recorded during our study was exported to the south, where bushmeat is more expensive, it seems possible that the influence of southern markets results in higher prices in the northern markets. These are complex dynamics that require further study.


Bushmeat trade flows


Our trade-flow analysis emphasized the influence that southern markets have on trade dynamics in the north. The large supply of bushmeat to southern Ghana could in- dicate rising demand for or increasing levels of depletion in southern areas, requiring traders to source meat from far- ther afield (McNamara et al., 2015). Another potential ex- planation for the flow of bushmeat to southern markets is that price premiums motivate bushmeat traders from the north to supply the larger and more lucrative urban markets in the south. This needs more detailed assessment; however, urban demand is recognized as a strong driver of bushmeat hunting and trade (Allebone-Webb et al., 2011).


Implications for wildlife conservation


The bushmeat trade is one of the biggest direct threats to exploited wild animal populations in Ghana and the wider region. Our market surveys revealed that a wide range of protected species are hunted and openly traded in markets. Four of the species we recorded are classified under the First Schedule of Ghana’s Wildlife Conservation Regulation of 1971 (LI 685; Table 1), prohibiting any person from hunting or being in possession of those species at any time. We also recorded seasonally protected species (Second and Third Schedules; Table 1) that were traded all year round. The


Oryx, 2023, 57(2), 216–227 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605322000096


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