The dynamics of wild and alternative meat consumption across Gabon, Central Africa

Abstract

Abstract Long‐term overharvesting of wild animals for their meat threatens wildlife and the people dependent on wild animal meat for their diets and incomes. Interventions to reduce wild meat consumption must be built upon a complete understanding of the roles of wild meat and its alternatives within food systems. Here, we conduct a national‐scale analysis of how urbanization, market access and price impact the use of wild and alternative meat and fish in Gabon.

We obtained data on the acquisition and consumption of wild and alternative meat and fish for >6900 households from the WILDMEAT database, the largest dataset for Gabon to date. We then analysed associations between settlement size, market access, and price with the probability of consuming wild meat, alternatives, or no meat, and how these foodstuffs were acquired by households.

We found the probability of consuming wild meat and no meat to be negatively associated with settlement population size, whereas consumption of alternative meats was more likely in larger settlements. In villages, consumption of both wild and alternative meats became more likely as market access increased. Consumption of all meat types was then negatively associated with price, except traded fish products, which were consumed more in villages at higher prices. Acquiring meat through hunting and fishing was more likely in the most isolated and smallest villages and, as population sizes and market access increased, buying meat became more likely.

Our results suggest that more isolated, rural households depend on harvesting wild meat and fish from the environment, alongside a narrow range of traded, tinned fish products, as alternatives to hunting and fishing. Conversely, households in larger settlements and high‐market‐access villages can purchase and consume alternative meats and traded wild meat.

Policy Implications : In Gabon, settlements >3500 people, where most wild meat is bought and alternatives are usually available, may suit market‐based and behaviour change interventions. Settlements of 900–3500 people may be effective targets of livelihood support projects. Nutritional analyses should be conducted in settlements <900 people, to understand the conditions under which wild meat is essential to nutritional security.

Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.