Sustainable management of the wildlife and bushmeat sector in Central Africa

1. Sustainable management of the wildlife and bushmeat sector in Central Africa GEF full size Project prepared by FAO edgar.kaeslin@fao.org

2. Context • The loss of tropical forest fauna (‘empty forest syndrome’) caused by habitat degradation and over-exploitation/trade of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, in many tropical and sub-tropical countries has reached critical levels and threatens the ecological stability and resilience of forest ecosystems.

3. Context (ct.) • Up to 75% of tropical tree species depend on animal seed dispersal. Many tree species will no longer be able to reproduce without their seed dispersers, thereby negatively affecting ecosystem services.

4. Context (ct.) • Food security and liveli-hoods of indigenous people and local communities is at risk. 30 to 80% of protein in-take in rural households in Central Africa comes from wild meat. Around 34 million people in the Congo Basin depend on wild animals for protein, consuming an estimated 5 million tonnes of bushmeat each year.

5. Context (ct.) • Bushmeat is now largely an open access resource. • The returns from hunting are generally higher than average local wages. • Increasing human-wildlife contact and the related bushmeat trade spread infectious diseases, such as Ebola, and Nipah. • Habitat loss increases human-wildlife conflict.

6. Project brief • full size project (10,245,450 US$) • project countries: Gabon, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic • project duration: 5 years (for replication) • relies on community-based wildlife management • inception workshop held 25-27 November 2009 in Libreville, Gabon • 4 national workshops held April and May 2010 • project proposal about to be submitted to GEF

7. Barriers to community-based wildlife management • Policy, legal and regulatory constraints • none of the countries have approved strategies (policies) for wildlife management; • in none of the four countries legal frameworks are operational which ... • empower communities to have exclusive rights to land and wildlife; • allow to legally market bushmeat and other wildlife products from permitted species that are harvested from these lands.

8. Barriers to community-based wildlife management (ct.) • Insufficient tools for participatory wildlife management • lack of field level tools/methodologies ... • to empower communities and organize dialogue and coordination amongst local stakeholders; • to apply techniques for participatory mapping; • to integrate traditional with modern systems. • lack of tools for incentives and sustainable financing ... • to optimize the cost/benefit ratio for providing best incentives for participatory wildlife management; • to sustainably finance community-based wildlife management.

9. Barriers to community-based wildlife management (ct.) • Insufficient tools for participatory wildlife management (ct.) • lack of monitoring tools ... • to balance off-take from wildlife populations; • to monitor wildlife populations in a simple, affordable way; • to validate community monitoring systems through modern wildlife monitoring techniques. • lack of knowledge management tools ... • to identify knowledge gaps and fill them efficiently; • to develop training courses, manuals, tools for awareness raising and for replication in participatory wildlife management.

10. Barriers to community-based wildlife management (ct.) • Insufficient institutional capacities ... • for communities to manage wildlife in a sustainable, equitable and productive way; • for communities to become self-sufficient in wildlife management; • for support institutions to provide the types of support needed by communities; • for support institutions to have operational capacities to adapt/replicate participatory wildlife management to new sites.

11. Project design • Component 1: • The legal framework in all four countries provides a clear and straightforward basis for development of participatory wildlife management. • Sub-component 1.1: A regional wildlife management strategy (RWMS) has been developed and formally adopted by each of the four countries. • Sub-component 1.2: Laws and regulations are developed or revised and adopted in a participatory approach to eliminate the legal barriers to participatory wildlife management that are specific to each country.

12. Project design (ct.) • Component 2: • The tools needed for participatory wildlife management are developed and made operational. • Sub-component 2.1: The tools for participatory wildlife management are developed in representative pilot sites. • Sub-component 2.2: Tools for financial incentives and for sustainable financing are developed. • Sub-component 2.3: Monitoring systems are developed. • Sub-component 2.4: Knowledge management tools are developed in support of participatory wildlife management. • Sub-component 2.5: Awareness raising campaigns are con-ducted for replication and for application of the revised laws.

13. Project design (ct.) • Component 3: • The capacities of community managers and community support institutions for participatory wildlife manage-ment are developed. • Sub-component 3.1: Capacities of community managers are developed in the areas of CBNRM, good governance, adaptive management and business management. • Sub-component 3.2: Operational capacities of institutions which provide support to community-based management are strengthened. • Sub-component 3.3: Operational capacities for the replication and adaptation of community-based management to new communities and sites are developed.

14. Project design (ct.) • Component 4: • Project management, monitoring and evaluation capacities are developed and implemented. • Sub-component 4.1: Project management units are established and operational in all four countries. • Sub-component 4.2: Project monitoring and evaluation capacities are developed and implemented in all four countries.

15. Risks & assumptions • If the marketing of bushmeat is legalized, it could become even more uncontrollable/unmanageable. • The situation is already out of control. The present tendency toward increasingly open access of resources negates any possibility of sustainable management. • The approach will first be tested at a local scale before being replicated and adapted to a larger scale. • The present system of State control has had very limited impact. It is very difficult to envisage the situation improving substantially without a real involvement of local people.

16. Risks & assumptions (ct.) • Government employees are often involved in the bushmeat trade resulting in insufficient support. • The project will develop continuous dialogue with all authorities concerned who will be members of stake-holder platforms at each site. Relationship between authorities and local people will improve. The high profile will ensure the support of local authorities. • A project can not guarantee passing of revised legislation, but the participatory approach and regional character of the initiative will both increase probability of adoption, particularly if framed in the context of the COMIFAC Convergence Plan.

17. Risks & assumptions (ct.) • The financial incentives will not be adequate for adoption of this new system. • Exclusive rights to traditional lands, in line with UNDRIP, will be a major incentive for communities whose lands are presently invaded by commercial hunters from outside. In addition, the project will assist communities to develop other non-wood forest products and to increase the added value of each marketed product.

18. Risks & assumptions (ct.) • The forest people will not be capable of enforcing community regulations for wildlife management. • The empowerment of local populations will be based on traditional rights over traditional hunting lands. The project will place a priority on the development of the needed capacities of community managers.

19. Summary • There are severe levels of over-hunting of protect-ed and non-protected wildlife species in the CB. • Local communities must be fully involved in, and benefit from, the conservation of wildlife. • Barriers to the development and replication of participatory wildlife management in the CB are: • constraints in policy, legal and regulatory frameworks • insufficient tools • insufficient institutional capacities

20. Summary (ct.) • The project will therefore ... • undertake legal and policy reforms ... • to empower community managers to have exclusive rights to wildlife on the lands they manage; • to make it legal for communities to harvest and sell species from approved lists of species that meet well-defined criteria; • to develop a reg. wildlife management policy for all countries. • develop participatory wildlife management tools ... • for structuring / empowering communities and defining rules; • for financial incentives and sustainable financing; • for developing wildlife monitoring systems; • for knowledge management and awareness raising.

21. Summary (ct.) • The project will therefore ... (ct.) • develop institutional capacities ... • for community managers • for community support institutions • for the replication and adaptation of participatory wildlife management • for oversight bodies

22. Thank you!