status quo (e.g., captive breeding of game species; livestock breeding schemes intended to 

 replace existing sources of animal protein; integrated conservation and development projects - 

 ICDPs), towards more radical measures to improve integrated management and governance of 

 wildlife resources. At present, the low purchasing power of local populations severely restricts 

 the development of alternatives for the use of wildlife. 



Specific recommendations for tlie international level 



1 . The need for national ownership: The international community is called on to give much greater 

 support to range States to bring the bushmeat problem under effective national ownership in 

 ways that provide broad local and national benefits. One area where this process is underway is 

 with the CITES Great Ape Enforcement Task Force Country Profiles, which may help develop 

 the sense of ownership by assisting countries in determining or identifying some of the key 

 issues associated with the bushmeat trade. 



2. Democratic process: Host governments need to be supported to open up the national debate on 

 wildlife management as part of the democratic process. 



3. Policy processes: International partners should seek to ensure that wildlife issues are, wherever 

 relevant, adequately covered within internationally supported policy processes, such as poverty 

 reduction strategies. 



4. Trade relations: More consideration needs to be given to the issue of unfavourable terms of 

 trade between wealthy and developing nations. A case in point may be international fisheries 

 policy and fisheries licensing agreements, where there is some evidence of a possible linkage 

 between increase of industrial scale fisheries, and increase of bushmeat consumption levels as a 

 protein substitute for fish stocks that are lost due to industrial-scale overfishing. To the extent 

 that this evidence is confirmed, the manipulation of international trade patterns (e.g. EU marine 

 fisheries subsidies) could indirectly influence the bushmeat trade in positive directions. 



5. International trade in wildlife: An area of particular international interest is the potential for the 

 high-value export of wild meat to act as a force for the rationalization of the trade, and as a 

 means of adding greater value to the lower levels of the bushmeat commodity chain. As matters 

 stand, legitimate channels for export of wild meat simply do not exist in most of the major range 

 States, and this may serve as an incentive to illegality. 



6. International policy environment: In general terms, international policy might be well advised 

 to give less emphasis to restrictive and repressive measures in the bushmeat-range States, and to 

 give greater attention to the positive incentives that may be required to better manage the 

 wildlife resource as an integral part of poverty reduction and national economies. 



Nature & Faune Vol. 23, Issue 1 36 



