Using scenarios to understand community-based interventions for bushmeat hunting and consumption in African savannas

Abstract

Community-based interventions are an important strategy to reduce bushmeat hunting, one of the key threats to African wildlife. However, understanding the possible effects of such programs prior to implementation is vital, in order to ensure that scarce funds are correctly directed. Here we used scenario-based interviews to explore the potential effects of seven programs on proxies for bushmeat hunting and consumption, including the provision of alternative protein sources, the provision of alternative incomes, and the harvesting of natural resources from protected areas. We conducted 250 interviews with respondents living around four protected areas in Malawi, and investigated how time budgets, household and village meat availability, and perceptions of fairness would change under each program. Respondents were most likely to substitute their current activities (including illegal hunting) under alternative income projects such as microenterprise and skills-training programs. All programs except increased enforcement were likely to increase the availability of meat in both households and villages. However, the effect of the scenarios on meat availability was perceived to be greater at village level than household level. Projects that provided long-term benefits such as a microenterprise program or skills training, were preferred over, and seen to be fairer than, programs relating to resource use, such as regulated hunting or park-based resource harvesting schemes. These results illustrate that programs that can harness development goals, while linking back to conservation rules, may successfully reduce bushmeat hunting and consumption around protected areas.

Introduction

Bushmeat hunting, or the harvesting of any non-domesticated mammal, bird or reptile for food (Nasi et al., 2008) is recognised as one of the world's major conservation challenges. Hunting for consumption is the largest threat to 72% of all threatened or near-threatened species (Maxwell et al., 2016). In much of Africa especially, protected areas are under substantial pressure from bushmeat hunting, with experts ranking it as the top threat to wildlife (Lindsey et al., 2017). As such, much attention has been given to how best manage this issue, given limited resources and time. Bushmeat interventions however, are often difficult to implement and achieve desired outcomes from, given the complexity of the social-ecological systems they are imbedded within (Berkes, 2004). Simplistic narratives about the motivations and drivers behind bushmeat hunting are pervasive and obscure the complex reality behind this issue (Travers et al., 2019). Given this complexity, managers struggle to make informed decisions about the best course of action to mitigate the bushmeat threat.

Strategies to reduce bushmeat hunting and consumption are split into three main types of approaches. The first is the traditional enforcement model where increased enforcement, the creation of new protected areas (PAs), and stricter penalties for resource-users aim to deter hunting (Hilborn et al., 2006). The second type of approach uses monetary or other incentives as in-kind payments for changing behaviour or obeying rules, a form of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) (Dinerstein et al., 2013). The third approach aims to develop small-scale alternatives to hunting and consumption, broadly named Alternative Livelihood Projects (ALPs), such as the provision of diversified income sources, provision of alternative protein sources and the creation of park-based benefits (van Vliet, 2011).

The ALP approach followed on from the contentious Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) approach popularised in the 1980s, which sought to link economic development, sustainable resource use and conservation, to meet both social development and conservation goals (Hughes and Flintan, 2001). This approach was criticised as ineffective in many cases due to problems with implementation, insufficient consideration of context (Waylen et al., 2010), insufficient benefits reaching individuals (Ferraro and Kiss, 2002), the lack of a direct link between the project and the conservation objective (Johannesen, 2006) and issues relating to the sustainability of resource use (Barrett and Arcese, 1995). The ALP approach however, unlike traditional ICDPs, seeks to create initiatives that are not necessarily linked to natural resources, by substituting damaging livelihood activities with alternatives (Wright et al., 2016). This approach aims to address drivers of wildlife crime such as the need for income to meet basic needs and beyond, perceived injustice, and cultural traditions (Harrison et al., 2015). Many protected areas aim for a combination of both enforcement and ALPs. However, given that evidence for the success of many of the latter is often lacking or contradictory (Wicander and Coad, 2014), approaches may be shifting towards enforcement and the militarisation of conservation (Duffy, 2014). However, there are development and ethical concerns with an enforcement-focussed approach, as bushmeat and food security in areas of extensive poverty are strongly interlinked (Fa et al., 2003).

Similar to ICDPS, there is a concern that assumptions about ALPs used to combat bushmeat may be flawed (Roe et al., 2015). Many projects aim to provide both the same level of income or protein as would be derived from hunting, as well as facilitating hunters to spend more time on other activities, thereby reducing the frequency of hunting. A key factor which many interventions fail to consider is whether the program actually results in substitution from hunting to another alternative, or rather simply adds a new activity to existing hunting activity (Wicander and Coad, 2014). In many cases, the assumption that the intervention is acting as a substitution is incorrect, as the intervention may not take up enough time to alter behaviour substantially, or else the intervention may be seen as an addition to improve the standard of living in households (Wright et al., 2016). Therefore, evaluating these interventions prior to large-scale implementation is vital.

Deciding on and implementing any conservation intervention can be challenging, stemming from the lack of systematic evaluation of projects and a shared evidence-base (Pullin and Knight, 2009). Successes are often difficult to define, and in many cases there is insufficient evidence of post-project outcomes (Saterson et al., 2004). Managers need tools that interrogate assumptions and predict responses prior to implementing projects (Margoluis et al., 2013). This is especially true in Africa where decisions at chronically under-funded PAs have to be made with limited resources (Lindsey et al., 2016). We used scenario-based interviewing to provide evidence of responses to a range of possible bushmeat interventions. Scenarios represent alternative futures in which a specific change is made, to explore how it may impact a system. Meaningful predictions of behaviour are made possible by limiting the time frame and type of changes considered, and therefore controlling contextual complexity (Gordon, 1992). Although scenarios are commonly used in many different fields (van Notten et al., 2003), their use has been limited in a conservation context. Cinner et al. (2009) used this approach by asking fishermen how likely they are to exit a fishery based on various scenarios, Travers et al. (2016) used it to explore which interventions would limit forest clearance, and Travers et al. (2019) how interventions would affect various illegal activities, including bushmeat hunting. This method can be readily understood by respondents and can explore heterogeneity in the target population, who can exhibit substantial social variation (Waylen et al., 2013). Therefore, the scenario approach can provide important insights as to probable responses to planned interventions, and challenge assumptions about their practical outcomes.

Here we use four protected areas in Malawi as a case study, where the rates of bushmeat hunting are known to be high (van Velden et al., 2020) and a number of different bushmeat interventions are currently planned. As no research currently exists as to likely responses of communities to these interventions, managers are looking for an evidence-based way forward. We therefore investigated responses to seven different interventions including alternative income projects, alternative protein projects and increased enforcement. Our aim was to understand which intervention would be most favourable in terms of perceived fairness, provision of meat and substitution of time spent, in order to reduce bushmeat hunting and/or consumption.