Roads linked to hunting for meat in Africa

The study, published in the current issue of Conservation Biology, confirms that roads—together with the hunting pressure they unleash—have reduced the numbers of many mammal species in Central Africa’s rainforests, including forest antelope, forest elephants, buffalo, red river hogs, lowland gorillas, and large carnivores.

The researchers found that even moderate hunting pressure can seriously disrupt the structure of a mammal community.

Conducted in a 400-square-mile (about 1,040 km²) tract of rainforest in southwestern Gabon, the study compared two neighboring zones.

One—about 130 km²—lies inside the Rabi oil concession managed by Shell-Gabon.

Because the concession is tightly patrolled, it effectively keeps out hunters and squatters. The surrounding landscape, by contrast, is laced with roads, subject to heavier hunting, and exposed to other development pressures.

By measuring mammal abundance and behavior on both sides of the line, the scientists showed that roads alone trigger major shifts—large and small—in the makeup of mammal communities.

They also found that hunting and road building alter behavior: many species outside the concession were far more prone to flee at the sight or scent of humans.

Why these findings matter
Unlike most earlier work in the region, which focused on single species, this study “teases apart” the separate and combined effects of roads and hunting across a range of mammals. Its results have both local and broader relevance: the Rabi area forms a potential wildlife corridor between two newly created national parks in Gabon.

Yet its future is uncertain.

Oil output from the Rabi concession has fallen by roughly 80 percent since 1997, and observers expect Shell eventually to leave.

Once that happens, researchers fear that hunting, new roads, and slash-and-burn clearing—along with any continuing oil activity—could sweep into the void.

Global implications
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute scientist William F. Laurance (a coauthor) notes a wider lesson: Shell-Gabon’s multifaceted environmental management in Rabi largely reflects its sensitivity to global consumer opinion and pressure.

“In my experience in Africa and Latin America,” he writes, “small, locally based companies in developing countries are sometimes uninterested in, and often unable to afford, serious environmental protection.

” Should conservationists therefore concentrate on pressuring the multinational giants—firms that are more exposed to international criticism—to limit ecological damage? The question is especially acute in Central Africa but carries weight worldwide.

Multinational companies can, in some cases, serve as de facto stewards on the ground precisely because they are vulnerable to environmental scrutiny.

Pressure that green groups exert on big corporations may thus be an effective route to conservation—nowhere more so than in sub-Saharan Africa, where government agencies often lack the capacity to safeguard land and wildlife.

Despite decades of effort to create protected areas, parts of Africa lost a higher proportion of their large mammals during the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s than any other region on Earth.

Poverty, social conflict, and commercial exploitation have taken a steep toll on the continent’s biodiversity.

Because the Shell concession has effectively acted as a wildlife refuge, the company’s eventual departure could have far-reaching consequences for the animal populations that inhabit this unique, biodiverse landscape.

Source: brasil.mongabay.com

\