Opportunities exist, for example within the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and Forest Law 

 Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) processes, to advance the rights and tenurial changes 

 needed to ensure sound management of rural resources, bushmeat included. 



3. Legitimizing the bushmeat debate: Policy is unlikely to be advanced as long as bushmeat is not 

 present in the public discourse. The aura of illegality that surrounds all aspects of the trade is 

 unhelpful to the policy process and is preventing a sound assessment of management 

 requirements. Moves to legalize a portion of the trade would increase the reliability of 

 information on the bushmeat commodity chain, and information about possibilities for adding 

 value to the commodity chain in a way that is sound in terms both of biodiversity (conservation 

 effects) and development (poverty reduction). 



4. Legislative review: National legislation on wildlife and hunting often suffers from incoherence 

 and impracticality. Well-established and widely accepted practices may be de jure (according to 

 law) illegal, thus increasing the opportunities for corruption, and the steps required to achieve 

 legality may be so impractical as to encourage illegality on the part of otherwise law-abiding 

 citizens. Range States are therefore encouraged to review their existing legislation for policy 

 coherence and cross-linkages (see above); practicality and feasibility; the potential for incentive 

 measures; and law enforcement capacities; and rationalization of the law to reflect actual 

 practice, without surrendering key conservation concerns. 



5 . Protected areas: Protected areas are an essential component of any strategy for sustainable use of 

 wildlife at the landscape level, and large protected areas will be essential for conserving the 

 larger animals. In addition, landscape level planning for habitat connectivity and resilience is 

 rapidly gaining importance in view of the need to adapt to climate change. At the same time, a 

 balanced approach to protection policy is required, giving greater attention to the designation 

 and management of protected areas, with due regard to all aspects of sustainability, including 

 poverty reduction needs. The fact that biodiversity hotspots are often associated with human 

 settlement and impact renders this a challenging issue. 



6. The role of science in wildlife policy: heavy investments have been made in many bushmeat 

 range states in relation to in the scientific study of wildlife populations and the impacts of their 

 use. However, the value of this research has been limited by its frequent close association with 

 advocacy groups, often representing the interests of external constituencies. Support is needed 

 to increase the information base of national policy-makers (government and non-government) 

 and to reduce their dependence on advocacy-based organizations with external constituencies 

 and mandates. 



7. Engaging the private sector: Approaches to conservation in production forests have tended to 

 focus on restricting the impact of timber concessionaires and their personnel. While these efforts 

 are in many ways to be commended, the implications for the livelihoods and welfare of local 

 populations have not been adequately considered. Policy development needs to go beyond the 

 interests of the reputable loggers and the external organizations, and to embrace public 

 participation of local stakeholders, in particular indigenous and local communities. 



8. Learning processes: Greater attempts are needed to investigate and build on the experience in 

 the context of sustainable forest management, and of other sectors for ideas and models that 

 might help to improve the management of the bushmeat trade. Examples of relevance might 

 include sea fisheries (e.g. lessons learnt from the collapse of the North Atlantic cod fisheries, 

 etc.), the pharmaceutical industry, and herbal medicines. 



9. Substitution and other palliative measures: A shift in thinking is needed, away from palliative 

 measures intended to mitigate the effects of wildlife harvest with minimum implications for the 



Nature & Faune Vol. 23, Issue 1 35 



