In Africa, overhunting of tropical wildlife for food remains an intractable issue. Donors and governments remain committed to invest in efforts to both conserve and allow the sustainable use of wildlife. Four principal barriers need to be overcome: (i) communities are not motivated to conserve wildlife long-term because they have no formal rights to benefit from wildlife, or to exclude others from taking it on their land; (ii) multispecies harvests, typical of bushmeat hunting scenarios, place large-bodied species at risk of extinction; (iii) wildlife production cannot expand, in the same way that livestock farming can, to meet the expected growth in consumer demand; and (iv) wildlife habitat is lost through conversion to agriculture, housing, transportation networks and extractive industries. In this review, we examine the actors involved in the use of wildlife as food and discuss the possible solutions required to address urban and rural bushmeat consumption. Interventions must tackle use and conservation of wildlife through the application of context-relevant interventions in a variety of geographies across Africa. That said, for any bushmeat solution to work, there needs to be concurrent and comparable investment in strengthening the effectiveness of protected area management and enforcement of wildlife conservation laws.

No abstract

No abstract

The comparison of precision is often advocated for the selection of an appropriate census and/or monitoring method for wildlife, but little attention is generally paid to their cost effectiveness, a crucial criterion given budgetary and logistical constraints. We present six direct count methods conducted in a communal area of the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe, and compare them in terms of (1) effort and cost to survey an area (sampling efficiency), and (2) efficiency in data collection (detection efficiency). Methods ranged from c.US$0.2 to over US$6.0/km 2 and needed from 0.1 to 5.0 human-h/km 2 . The comparison of efficiencies showed the advantages of simple ground methods: foot counts and particularly bicycle counts appear well adapted to the ecological and human context of our study. The relative benefits and constraints of the different methods are discussed in the context of a community-based wildlife management programme.