INVISIBILITY OF BUSHMEAT TRADE CHAINS AND PARTICIPATORY

MONITORING IN THE AMAZONIAN TRIFRONTIER REGION OF COLOMBIA,

PERU & BRAZIL

Nathalie van Vliet, Daniel Cruz-Antia, María Paula Quiceno, Lindon Jonhson Neves, Blanca Yague, Sara Hernández & Robert Nasi

Alternative Sustainable Conservation & Utilization Methods Round Table

XI CIMFAUNA

Port Spain – Trinidad & Tobago 2014

Bushmeat is still fundamental for the subsistence of rural and

urban communities in the Amazon, even in contexts of rapid

socioeconomic transformations push rural livelihoods away

from the dependency on forest products.

Rural hunting: 150 000 tons/year (Nasi, Taber & van Vliet,

2011)

Lack of information for urban bushmeat marketsilegallity

Insignificant: Because of availability and prices of domestic

sources of protein (Rushton et al, 2005)

Bushmeat and the rural to urban transition

Bushmeat and the rural to urban transition

Traditional social-

ecological systems in

Amazonia

Modern social-

ecological systems in

Amazonia

Urbanization

Increasing migration

Access to markets and new consumption aspirations

Dependency to monetary economy

Social politics that creates new sources of monetary

income

New social bonds from the rural to the urban

Cultural Transformations

Nutritional

transitions

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8

Leticia

Tabatinga

% of children that consumed types of protein 24-hour prior to the interview

Low level waters

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8

Leticia

Tabatinga

% of children that consumed types of protein 24-hour prior to the interview

High level waters

Bushmeat and the rural to urban transition

(Van Vliet et al 2014)

Bushmeat and the rural to urban transition

• Lack of variety, poorer diets, nutritional deficiencies &

diseases (anaemia and chronic health problems) (Santos et al

2013; Mori, 2014; Adams et al 2014, van Vliet et al 2014)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

indigenas de lascomunidades a lo largo

del río Amazonas

indígenas de PuertoNariño

indígenas de la zonaperi-urbana de "los

kilometros"

indigenas urbanos deLeticia

% o

f in

terv

iew

ed p

eo

ple

th

at co

nsu

me

d t

yp

es o

f p

rote

in

24-h

ou

rs p

rio

r to

th

e in

terv

iew

carne de monte

pescado

pato

cerdo

carne procesada

res

huevo

pollo

River communities

(rural)

Puerto Nariño

community (rural)

Peri urban families in

LeticiaUrban families in

Leticia

Bushmeat

Fish

Duck

Pork

Processed

meat

Beef

Egg

Chicken

(Van Vliet et al 2014)

Bushmeat as a cultural preference

Canned tuna10%

Fresh fish12%

Bushmeat12%

Local Chicken 19%

Beef21%

Bushmeat4%

Sausage6%

Beef7%

Freshskin fish

7%Fresh fish16%

Industrialized egg19%

Industrialized chicken

21%

Preferred proteins in Leticia Most consumed proteins in Leticia

• 12% of children have eaten bushmeat the day before to the interview

• 33% of the interviewed had consummed bushmeat the month prior to the

interview

• Paca, tapir, pecari, deer, agouti

(Van Vliet et al 2014; Quiceno et al 2014)

Research questions

Study case in a frontier region

Structure and function of the bushmeat market chain

Why is data on urban bushmeat trade so scarce in the

Amazon?

• Is the trade insignificant because of availability of

industrial proteins?

• 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?

Study area

Methods

Diversity of approaches to describe and quantify the

bushmeat market chain:

Participatory observation

Informal and semi-estructured interviews

Participatory monitoring

Participatory monitoring

Benefits (Luzar et al 2011)

Useful at large spatial and time scales

Reinforce legitimacy community governance

Take advantage of traditional ecological knowledge

Cheaper

Local researchers can liaise with communities to share resultsand take decisions

Need to implement a verification and validation strategy

What did we find?

Results

113

23

8 22 11 10

26

HUNTERS MARKET SELLERS RESTAURANTS (FORMAL)

RESTAURANTS (INFORMAL)

Num

be

r o

f u

se

rs

Men Women

Stakeholders in the bushmeat market chain 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 networkShort: friends,

neighbours

Long: intermediaries,

traders

Type of meat Fresh Fresh, smoked, salted

Use of landscapeUse mosaic of

landscape 74% primary forests

Mean number of

hunting trips/month 4 6

29% rely exclusively on hunting

Rural: boat, hunting trails by feet

Peri-urban: roadways (motorbike, bycicle, public transportation)

Bushmeat sellers Intermediaries

• At ports or communities

• Cellphone, buy at low cost USD$ 1.09/kg and sell

USD$ 3,29 / kg

•

Market sellers

• Have fixed stalls that involve monthly rental fees

• Alternate with fish, chicken and clothing

BRAZIL COLOMBIA PERU

Fresh 4,7 7,0 4,3

Salted/smoked 5,1 4,1

Fresh 5,1

Salted/smoked 5,1 3,3

Fresh 5,1 6,2 4,3

Salted/smoked 5,1 4,7

Fresh 4,8 6,2 3,6

Salted/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

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 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 composition and quantities of bushmeat

Market places

(8)

• Mammals 74%,

birds 16%,

reptiles 10%.

• 6,7 tons in 20

days

• 3 tons Low

level

• 3,7 tons high

level0 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

Species composition and quantities of bushmeat

Hunters (8)

• Mammals

60%, birds

26%, reptiles

14%.

• 13 tons in 60

days

• 5,24 tons

high level

• 7,75 tons

Low level0 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

Discussion & Conclusions

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)

Clandestinity provides the erronous idea that the volumes

traded are insignificant6,7 tons (8 traders/20 days)

• Tabatinga (Brazil) 52,272 hab , 56,21 tons/year

• Franceville, Central Africa, 40,000 hab, 45 tons/year

• Abaetetuba, (Brazil) 130,000 inhabitants, 56 tons/year (Baía et al

2010)

Then bushmeat trade in Amazonian towns is not insignificant, is

instead insufficiently studied

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 (Townsend, 1995, 2000, 2004; Bodmer et al 2004; Noss & Cuellar, 2000; Fragoso et al

2002; Hill et al 2003; Ferraz et al 2008)

Market data can provide valuable information for policy makers

and managers to formulate strategies for the sustainable use

of wildlife

Cultural preferences for bushmeat consumption are well

established in the region

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 Cooperation

Discussion & Conclusions

Nathalie van Vliet

vanvlietnathalie@yahoo.com

nvliet@cgiarad.org