Why scientists are in favour of wild meat consumption

Eating wild meat plays an essential role in food security and a source of protein for millions across Africa, according to a new study.

A report titled ‘Eating Wild Animals: Rewards, Risks, and Recommendations’ underscores the vital role wild meat plays in providing a reliable source of protein for millions of people, especially in areas with environmental or economic challenges that limit access to livestock or other protein sources.

The report by the International Livestock Research Institute was released last week.

The scientists argue that wild meat consumption should not be reduced to a simple debate of conservation versus exploitation. Instead, they call for a more nuanced understanding that takes into account the nutritional, socio-economic and cultural realities tied to this practice.

"Wild meat remains a critical source of protein for about 400 million people in sub-Saharan Africa," the scientists reported. They further warned that banning wild meat could have severe consequences, especially in areas where alternative protein sources are scarce. "In regions with limited access to alternative protein sources, prohibiting wild meat could lead to significant nutritional deficits," they cautioned.

According to the report, at least 15 countries, predominantly in Africa, would face increased food insecurity if wild meat was removed from their diets. 

“In at least 62 countries across sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Southeast Asia, wildlife and wild fish account for over 20 per cent of animal protein in rural households. In these regions, people depend on wild meat to maintain a balanced diet as livestock farming is often too expensive or impractical for much of the population. Without access to wild meat, rural communities would face severe nutritional deficiencies,” the study says.

Beyond nutrition, wild meat also provides economic support for many communities, making its sustainable use vital for both human welfare and conservation efforts. The scientists emphasised that for many rural populations, wild meat offers a dual benefit—nutritional value and economic opportunity.

The scientists emphasised that conservation should not overshadow the human needs tied to wild meat consumption, particularly in areas where food security is already precarious. They noted that sustainable solutions that balance conservation goals with the needs of local communities are crucial to both biodiversity preservation and human welfare.

They argued that rather than focusing solely on banning wild meat, efforts should be made to promote sustainable harvesting practices, noting that controlled consumption and trade of wild meat could support conservation efforts by giving communities a vested interest in preserving local wildlife populations.

Attempts to ban wild meat consumption have sparked intense debate, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, where millions of people depend on it for food security and livelihoods. 

Conservationists argue that unregulated hunting is unsustainable, leading to species extinction, habitat destruction, and biodiversity loss. In response, governments and international bodies have proposed bans and restrictions on hunting, selling, and consuming wild meat.

However, the scientists argue that while the ethical concerns surrounding wild meat hunting are legitimate, it would be “currently impossible and also immoral to attempt to ban the hunting, selling and eating of wild meat.” 

“And while calls to ban the hunting, selling, and consumption of wild meat may seem justified, especially considering concerns around wildlife conservation and the risk of zoonotic diseases across Sub-Saharan Africa and East and Southeast Asia, the harsh reality is that millions of people depend on wild meat for their food security and livelihood. Any sweeping bans could have devastating consequences for already vulnerable populations,” the team noted.

According to their report, in Africa, consumption of wild meat is often much higher than livestock meat. One to five million metric tonnes of wild meat are extracted each year in Africa. Hunters may eat on average 38kg of wild meat a year and farmers 16kg of wild meat, compared to typically 19kg of livestock meat.

The trade-in wild meat is not just a matter of survival for rural communities but also a significant economic activity. Estimates suggest that between one and five million metric tonnes of wild meat are extracted annually across Africa, with a trade value likely exceeding USD 1 billion per year. This figure could be even higher considering the informal nature of much of the wild meat market. Due to this demand, in several countries, the focus is already shifting from wildlife tourism to wildlife farming.

For many people, the wild meat trade offers a vital source of income, especially in areas where formal employment opportunities are scarce. 

“Wildlife conservation efforts must account for the complex interplay between human survival and ecosystem preservation. Ignoring the needs of those who depend on wild meat risks deepening social inequalities and fueling illegal hunting activities, which could have even worse consequences for wildlife populations,” says the report.

A more sustainable approach, they suggested, involves regulated hunting, alternative livelihoods, and wildlife management that incorporates the needs of local communities. By addressing both the human and environmental dimensions of the wild meat trade, policymakers can develop solutions that balance conservation with the well-being of people whose lives are intertwined with the ecosystem, say the scientists.

Lack of food, not money, drives poaching in East African national parks

Poverty and lack of adequate food supply drive most of the poaching and other illegal activities in East Africa's national parks, according to new research. 
The study, led by Edwin Sabuhoro, assistant professor of recreation, park, and tourism management at Penn State, and two doctoral students from East Africa, demonstrated that the parks protect endangered wildlife but sometimes do not support local human populations.

The researchers, led by Gasto Lyakurwa, doctoral student in recreation, park, and tourism, management at Penn State, surveyed 267 household heads in eight villages that border Mkomazi National Park in northern Tanzania

They focused on locals’ use of park land and their families’ food security, financial security and educational security to understand which factors led to illegal park use. Results were published in the Conservation on September 25. 

Since the foundation of the park  and other protected areas throughout East Africa — the researchers said, park officials and rangers have viewed local people as a threat, rather than as a potential conservation partner.

“For countless generations, the people in this area relied on that land for meat, traditional medicines, firewood, fish and timber,” Lyakurwa said. 

“These resources were essential to the people’s livelihood, but suddenly, they were cut off from the land. Even though local people told us they feel connected to the wild animals, they also made it clear that they are not likely to respect park boundaries if they cannot feed themselves or their children.”

Besides, the park, created in 1951, displaced large numbers of people from the park land into surrounding regions two times — once in the early 1950s and again in the late 1980s.

When asked if and why they used the park for illegal animal grazing or poaching, many villagers reported that they did use park land. The researchers compared these results to people’s statements about their family’s consistent access to — or “security” in — food, education and adequate finances.

Results showed that food security was the primary driver of illegal activity, while education security and financial security had minimal influence on poaching. The researchers said the findings demonstrated that people poach for food, not to enrich themselves, or to pay for their children’s education. To successfully protect wildlife and their habitat, parks need to address food security for residents, the researchers said.

“Communities are expected to support conservation, but they are facing deprivation,” Lyakurwa said. “Animals — especially elephants and lions — come out of the parks and trample crops and injure or kill people. Also, the people feel they need park lands to graze their own animals. It is easy to understand why they are not more supportive of park boundaries when their lives are at stake.”

[email protected]