Summary The COVID-19 pandemic has brought humanity’s strained relationship with nature into sharp focus, with calls for cessation of wild meat trade and consumption, to protect public health and biodiversity. 1 , 2 However, the importance of wild meat for human nutrition, and its tele-couplings to other food production systems, mean that the complete removal of wild meat from diets and markets would represent a shock to global food systems. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 The negative consequences of this shock deserve consideration in policy responses to COVID-19. We demonstrate that the sudden policy-induced loss of wild meat from food systems could have negative consequences for people and nature. Loss of wild meat from diets could lead to food insecurity, due to reduced protein and nutrition, and/or drive land-use change to replace lost nutrients with animal agriculture, which could increase biodiversity loss and emerging infectious disease risk. We estimate the magnitude of these consequences for 83 countries, and qualitatively explore how prohibitions might play out in 10 case study places. Results indicate that risks are greatest for food-insecure developing nations, where feasible, sustainable, and socially desirable wild meat alternatives are limited. Some developed nations would also face shocks, and while high-capacity food systems could more easily adapt, certain places and people would be disproportionately impacted. We urge decision-makers to consider potential unintended consequences of policy-induced shocks amidst COVID-19; and take holistic approach to wildlife trade interventions, which acknowledge the interconnectivity of global food systems and nature, and include safeguards for vulnerable people.

No abstract

Bushmeat hunting, trade and consumption is a growing biodiversity and food security concern. Much of the collated research is currently limited to forested regions however, despite indications of the increasing threat in savanna regions. Savanna regions are biodiverse and often have high-value wildlife tourism industries, but also have rapidly-growing rural populations which can be highly dependent on natural resource use. In this systematic quantitative literature review we seek to understand the state of knowledge about bushmeat in savanna regions in Africa. We aim to identify gaps in the scientific literature, both spatially and topically, as well as understand what methodologies are used, what common recommendations are made and what interventions have been quantified. We identified 144 relevant studies from the literature. Although studies have increased over time and diversified thematically, there were strong biases in research. Most studies have been conducted in Tanzania, with gaps in research in southern Africa and the Sahelian region. Additionally, only 25% of papers investigated interventions used to reduce bushmeat hunting, with traditional enforcement being the most common intervention studied (53% of intervention studies, 13% of all papers). Other frequently recommended interventions such as alternative incomes received little attention (14% of intervention studies, 3.5% of papers). Further, although many studies cite common drivers of bushmeat hunting such as income or livestock, the evidence for these drivers was lacking and contradictory. We reveal that although bushmeat in savanna regions is gaining recognition, many gaps in knowledge remain. This is the first study to systematically quantify the available research about bushmeat in African savannas and aims to inform future research. 958 Olson et al 2001 biomes). Regions are African Union groupings.