participatory monitoring of the bushmeat trade in the amazonian trifrontier (colombia, peru, brazil)
DESCRIPTION
Participatory monitoring of the bushmeat trade in the Amazonian Trifrontier (Colombia, Peru, Brazil). Daniel Cruz-Antia, Maria Paula Quiceno, Nathalie van Vliet, Lindon Jonhson Neves & Robert NasiTRANSCRIPT
Innovative ways for conserving the ecosystem services provided by bushmeat SYMPOSIA ATBC 2014
Cairns, Australia
PARTICIPATORY MONITORING OF THE BUSHMEAT TRADE IN THE AMAZONIAN TRIFRONTIER (COLOMBIA, PERU & BRAZIL)
Daniel Cruz-Antia, María Paula Quiceno, Nathalie van Vliet, Lindon Jonhson Neves & Robert Nasi
ü Bushmeat is still fundamental for the subsistence of rural and urban communities in the Amazon, even in contexts of rapid socioeconomic transformations à push rural livelihoods away from the dependency on forest products.
ü Rural hunting: 150 000 tons/year (Nasi, Taber & van Vliet, 2011)
ü L a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r u r b a n b u s h m e a t marketsàilegallity
ü Insignificant: Because of availability and prices of domestic sources of protein (Rushton et al, 2005)
• Iquitos, Loreto - Peru (Bodmer and Lozano 2001, Claggett 1998) • Abaetetuba, Pará-Brazil (Baía et al 2010)
Bushmeat and the rural to urban transi1on
Research ques1ons ü Study case in a frontier region ü Why is data on urban bushmeat trade so scarce in the
Amazon?
• Is the trade insignificant? • Is it invisible and difficult to assess because it occurs
in hidden markets? • Is it because public institutions and research have
provided little efforts in quantifying its importance?
ü Describe the structure and function of the bushmeat market chain
Study area
Methods
ü Diversity of approaches to describe and quantify the bushmeat market chain:
Participatory observation
Informal and semi-estructured interviews
Participatory monitoring
What did we find? Results
113
23
8 2 2 11 10
26
HUNTERS MARKET SELLERS RESTAURANTS (FORMAL)
RESTAURANTS (INFORMAL)
Nu
mbe
r of
use
rs
Men Women
Stakeholders in the bushmeat market chain ü 195 users (115 hunters, 34 market sellers, 18 formal
restaurants and 28 informal restaurants)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Santa Rosa (Pe)
Caballococha & Atacuari River (Pe)
Islandia (Pe)
Puerto Nariño & Loretoyacu river (Col)
Leticia (Col)
Atalaia do Norte (Bra)
Benjamin Constant (Bra)
Tabatinga (Bra)
Number of users
Restaurants (Informal) Restaurants (Formal) Market sellers Hunters
Stakeholders in the bushmeat market chain
Surveillance (30% of users reported to be
penalized)
Hunters Diversified hunters Specialized hunters
% of bushmeat traded 35% 90%
Trade network Short: friends, neighbours
Long: intermediaries, traders
Type of meat Fresh Fresh, smoked, salted
Use of landscape Use mosaic of landscape
74% primary forests
Mean number of hunting trips/month
4 6
ü 29% rely exclusively on hunting
ü Rural: boat, hunting trails by feet
ü Peri-urban: roadways (motorbike, bycicle, public transportation)
Bushmeat sellers ü Intermediaries
• At ports or communities • Cellphone, buy at low cost à USD$ 1.09/kg and
sell USD$ 3,29 / kg •
ü Market sellers • Have fixed stalls that involve monthly rental fees • Alternate with fish, chicken and clothing
BRAZIL COLOMBIA PERU
Fresh 4,7 7,0 4,3Salted/smoked 5,1 4,1Fresh 5,1Salted/smoked 5,1 3,3Fresh 5,1 6,2 4,3Salted/smoked 5,1 4,7Fresh 4,8 6,2 3,6Salted/smoked 5,1 3,6
Cuniculus paca
Tapirus terrestris
Pecari tajacu
Mazama americana
Average price of bushmeat kg ($USD)Most commercialized
Commercialization form
Bushmeat sellers
ü Food stalls & restaurants:
• In neighbourhoods, market places or touristic places
• Dish USD$ 3.50 & USD$10
• Cuniculus paca, Mazama americana and Pecari tajacu
Catchment area and trade routes ü Flows are limited by control operations and costs of
transportation and supplies, and vary according to the availability of fish and the demand from coca workers
Species composi1on and quan11es of bushmeat
ü Hunters (8)
• Mammals 60%, birds 26%, reptiles 14%.
• 485 individuals and 13 tons in 60 days
• 5,24 tons high level
• 7,75 tons low
level
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pecari tajacu
Aburria sp.
Dasypus sp
Mazama americana
Tayassu pecari
Dasyprocta fuliginosa
Crypturellus sp.
Lagothrix lagothricha
Tapirus terrestris
Crax sp
Podocnemis unifilis
Cuniculus paca
Number of individuals
High-level waters Low-level waters
Species composi1on and quan11es of bushmeat
ü Market places (8)
• Mammals 74%, birds 16%, reptiles 10%.
• 6,7 tons in 20 days
• 3 tons Low level
• 3,7 tons high level
0 5 10 15 20 25
Mazama gouazoubira
Chelonoidis denticulata
Podocnemis unifilis
Tayassu pecari
Crax globulosa
Dasypus sp.
Mazama americana
Pecari tajacu
Tapirus terrestris
Cuniculus paca
Number of reports
Low level waters High level waters
Discussion & Conclusions ü Bushmeat trade contributes to people´s livelihoods, local
economy and well-being: complete market chains (US$686,000 year=2286 monthly min. wage=190 people)
ü Clandestinity provides the erronous idea that the volumes
traded are insignificantà6,7 tons (8 traders/20 days)
ü Then bushmeat trade in Amazonian towns is not insignificant, is instead insufficiently studied
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20
Tabatinga (Brazil) - 56,21tons/52272 hab
Abaetetuba (Brazil) - 128tons/130.000hab
Franceville (Gabón) 45tons/40,000hab
kg of bushmeat/per cápita/year
ü Opportunity to legalise and regulate the market of resilient species, while monitoring the effect of the trade on more vulnerable ones (and regulating in accordance).
• Paca (LC): widely distributed, large population, unlikely to be declining.
• Collared peccary: widely distributed, habitat loss and over-hunting (LC), requires monitoring
• Tapir: VU, habitat loss, illegal hunting and competition with livestock
• Red brocket deer: Data Deficient
Discussion & Conclusions
Innovative monitoring tools based on local participation
ü Market data can provide valuable information for policy makers and managers to formulate strategies for the sustainable use of wildlife
ü Participatory approaches are worth trying:
• It is possible to work together with the stakeholders of the trade chain to study the activity and put in place monitoring mechanisms.
• Trust à Cooperation
Discussion & Conclusions