Elephants, gorillas and other large forest mammals may become extinct in central Africa within 50 years if hunting meat to feed starving populations continues at the current pace. Each year, rural peoples consume some 2.2 billion pounds (one million metric tons) of so-called bushmeat from wildlife, the equivalent of four million cattle; the flesh accounts for 80 percent of the protein and fat in their diet.

"If current levels of hunting persist in central Africa, the most vulnerable species will become extinct in the near future," cautions Nathalie Van Vliet, a researcher at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) based in Indonesia. The problem is, she adds, that "if the people that currently rely on bushmeat as a source of protein in central Africa had to rely on livestock, we would see the same catastrophe that is destroying the Amazon Basin: deforestation for pasture land and livestock raising."

In fact, there is no simple solution to this problem. CIFOR, in a report released today, argues that a hunting ban would not work, as evidenced by the failure of antipoaching programs, among other things. But it also says that forest species such as elephants, buffalo and apes that are slow to reproduce need to be protected or they will disappear entirely. Already, roughly 40 percent of jungle species are killed in greater numbers than can be regained through reproduction, according to the report "The Bushmeat Crisis."

The report calls for local agreements that allow hunting of species that can rebound quickly (such as various species of duikers, a type of forest antelope) while nixing kills of species with long gestation periods (such as elephants who give birth after 22 months). This is "hunting that can satisfy the demand from the poorest in future generations as well as ensure the stability in the long-term of hunted animal populations," Van Vliet says. But she notes the "success" of such pacts will depend on local communities' willingness to abide by them.

The only examples of such sustainable hunting, however, are either among people who have almost no contact with other human beings, such as the indigenous Aché people in the forests of eastern Paraguay, or those who have already killed off local populations of slow-breeding animals as is evidenced in the bushmeat market in Takoradi, Ghana.

Further exacerbating the problem: illegal and even legal activities in central African forests, such as logging and mining, that carve out new access as well as attract new people who also crave meat. And laws against the wildlife trade have failed to prevent supplies of everything from rhinoceros horns to tiger bones from reaching the estimated $3.9-billion global market.

That suggests that even granting ownership of the common resource represented by a duikers herd might not solve the problem, as some experts suggest. But it also shows that blanket bans are not working either. "In the tropics, they have genuine needs," says entomologist Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology, who was not involved with this study but has been assessing the problems presented by expanding human population since the 1960s. "There are desperately poor people surrounding reserves. If I was there, I would shoot the hippo and eat it, too."

Granting local peoples a limited right to hunt while working actively to manage specific populations of animals in the jungle—a task complicated by an inability to determine exactly how large a given population is—may prove the only way to truly conserve, according to the authors of the report, which also includes experts from the United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

"The question is conserving for whom?" Van Vliet asks.  "For rural people that need to survive as well as for urban people that would love to see our fauna in the future—or just conserving for the sake of it?"

6 Comments

1. 1. scientific earthling 08:53 PM 9/15/08

   We are not controlling our population with hopes that numbers will help Homo sapien survive the sixth extinction. It will not work. We are just accelerating our extinction. As we become the most numerous hosts available to bacteria and viruses (also trying to survive), they will be forced to select us as host. We all know what trauma results while the two evolve to a symbiotic relationship.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. hotblack 09:17 PM 9/15/08

   Perhaps a mad scientist will set free a virus to wipe out humanity & restores balance to life on earth. Every day, more and more points to our overpopulation as being a world-killer. It's been the subject of millions of sci-fi movies and saturday morning cartoons for decades. How long before someone does it? Sure, it's crazy to run against the grain of ones own species. We're still anthropocentric enough that such concepts are blasphemous and off-limits in any discussion, but, find another solution. It is the simplest, most effective solution. But we will press on, searching to invent a billion new and more complex kinds of bandaids, to fabricate a ramshackle patchwork of fixes, so that we may continue on, perilous to everything around us. As the solutions become harder and harder, and each create more and more new problems, at what point have we raised the stakes so high that nature hits us back? "It's the end of the world as we know it, iiiit's the end of the world as we...."
   
   The only peaceful solution to any of it is self-control, and clearly the majority of individuals, and the society they've created, sees no value in self-control. No sympathy at all when humanity goes down in flaming ruin. We had every ability and chance to live healthy, clean, decent lives as life has functioned for millions of years. What a waste.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. bongaan 05:39 AM 9/16/08

   Maybe it is time to listen to those religious people who say that it is the last days and that the Saviour is returning to save human kind from their own destruction. But oh yes, I just remember, only those who believe that He is returing are going to be saved.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. ajhil 10:32 AM 9/17/08

   It's fasciinating that no mention is made in this article about curbing the growth of human populations in these regions. Yet, absent such measures, humans will inevitably increase beyond any conceivable carrying capacity, dooming both wildlife and themselves.
   It seems likely that in prehistoric times, local groups of humans did indeed breed themselves into extinction, providing an important check on overall population growth. Mankind's current global reach makes that kind of limitation unlikely. We must choose between self-control and self-destruction.
   I'm betting on the latter.
   [By the way, Prof. Ehrlich, the correct construction is, "If I were there ..."]

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. met069 in reply to ajhil 12:19 PM 9/19/08

   Overpopulation.... isn't the problem. We should be centuries away from any catastrophe involving lack of resources. We have the land and the technology to feed the world dozens of times over.
   
   But as always, the people of Africa suffer from unfair trade policies and inept/corrupt governments. You know, instead of shifting responsibility onto the Africans to 'control their populations', we could instead, you know, HELP them. There is an underlying reason for why they are so hungry and poor that they have to hunt to survive, and it's not overpopulation. If anything, global culling or birth control are rather shortsighted solutions themselves. Sustainable development of economies and the formation of competent governments, while hard to do, will be much better for both humans and wildlife.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. ajhil in reply to met069 01:08 PM 9/19/08

   To put it bluntly, you have no idea what you're talking about. According to the Department of Agriculture the United States is within a couple of decades of being unable to export food without reducing the nutritional standards of our own populatoin. Erosion, pollution, salinization, lack of water and other factors are steadily reducing the amount of arable land in this country and the rate of loss in increasing.
   Meanwhile the world's population continues to expand. The doubling time for global population is currently 60 years, yet you claim we have the ability to "feed the world dozens of times over." Taking your statement lterally, that means you believe it's possible to feed more than a hundred billion people with the Earth's resources. Are you nuts?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this