Vulnerability and coping strategies within wild meat trade networks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Measures adopted to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and economic shocks caused by the pandemic have affected food networks globally, including wild meat trade networks that support the livelihoods and food security of millions of people around the world. In this article, we examine how COVID-related shocks have affected the vulnerability and coping strategies of different actors along wild meat trade networks. Informed by 1,876 questionnaires carried out with wild meat hunters, traders, vendors, and consumers in Cameroon, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Guyana, the article presents qualitative evidence as to how COVID-19 impacted different segments of society involved in wild meat trade networks. Our findings largely align with McNamara et al. (2020) and Kamogne Tagne et al.'s (2022) causal model hypothesising how the impacts of the pandemic could lead to a change in local incentives for wild meat hunting in sub-Saharan African countries. Like McNamara et al. (2020) and Kamogne Tagne et al. (2022), we find that the pandemic reduced wild meat availability for wild meat actors in urban areas while increasing reliance on wild meat for subsistence purposes in rural areas. However, we find some impact pathways to be more relevant than others, and also incorporate additional impact pathways into the existing causal model. Based on our findings, we argue that wild meat serves as an important safety net in response to shocks for some actors in wild meat trade networks. We conclude by advocating for policies and development interventions that seek to improve the safety and sustainability of wild meat trade networks and protect access to wild meat as an environmental coping strategy during times of crisis.

Understanding Factors that Shape Exposure to Zoonotic and Food-Borne Diseases Across Wild Meat Trade Chains.

The rise of zoonotic disease-related public health crises has sparked calls for policy action, including calls to close wildlife markets. Yet, these calls often reflect limited understanding of where, precisely, exposure to risk occurs along wildlife and wild meat trade chains. They also threaten to negatively impact food security and livelihoods. From a public health perspective, it is important to understand the practices that shape food safety all along the trade chain, resulting in meat that is either safe to eat or managed as a potential vector of pathogens. This article uses ethnographic methods to examine the steps that lead a wild animal from the forest to the plate of an urban consumer in Yangambi and Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Focusing on hunters, village-level consumers, transporters, market traders and urban consumers, we highlight specific practices that expose different actors involved in the trade chain to wild meat related health risks, including exposure to food borne illnesses from contaminated meat and zoonotic pathogens through direct contact with wild animals, and the local practices in place to reduce the same. We discuss interventions that could help prevent and mitigate zoonotic and food borne disease risks associated with wild meat trade chains.

Why we must question the militarisation of conservation.

Concerns about poaching and trafficking have led conservationists to seek urgent responses to tackle the impact on wildlife. One possible solution is the militarisation of conservation, which holds potentially far-reaching consequences. It is important to engage critically with the militarisation of conservation, including identifying and reflecting on the problems it produces for wildlife, for people living with wildlife and for those tasked with implementing militarised strategies. This Perspectives piece is a first step towards synthesising the main themes in emerging critiques of militarised conservation. We identify five major themes: first, the importance of understanding how poaching is defined; second, understanding the ways that local communities experience militarised conservation; third, the experiences of rangers; fourth, how the militarisation of conservation can contribute to violence where conservation operates in the context of armed conflict; and finally how it fits in with and reflects wider political economic dynamics. Ultimately, we suggest that failure to engage more critically with militarisation risks making things worse for the people involved and lead to poor conservation outcomes in the long run.