An Exploration of the Role of Bushmeat in Ghana's Rural Communities

An exploration of the role of bushmeat in Ghana’s rural communities

Justine Shanti Alexander September 2011

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science and the Diploma of Imperial College London

Table of Contents

List of Figures ...... 3 List of Tables...... 4 Acronyms...... 4 1. INTRODUCTION...... 7 1.1 The Bushmeat crisis...... 7 1.2 Importance of this research...... 7 1.3 Aim and objectives...... 8 1.4 Thesis structure...... 9 2. BACKGROUND ...... 10 2.1 Bushmeat Commodity Chain ...... 10 2.1.1 Commodity Chain Overview...... 10 2.1.2 Hunting: Bushmeat Supply...... 11 2.1.3 Consumption: Bushmeat Demand...... 12 2.2 The Livelihood Approach ...... 12 2.2.1 Importance of hunting in rural livelihoods...... 12 2.2.2 Hunting interlinked with other livelihood activities...... 14 2.4 Bushmeat in Ghana ...... 15 2.4.1 Overview ...... 15 2.4.2 Study Site: Ashanti region...... 16 3. METHODS ...... 17 3.1 Data Collection...... 17 3.1.1 Selection of Villages...... 17 3.1.2 Research assistant...... 18 3.1.3 Key informants & Focus Groups...... 18 3.1.4 Household Sampling method...... 19 3.1.5 Structured Household Interviews ...... 19 3.1.6 Interviews with specific target groups...... 20 3.1.7 Ethics ...... 21 3.2 Statistical analysis...... 21 3.2.1 Descriptive Analysis...... 21 4. RESULTS...... 23 4.1 What role does hunting play in people’s livelihoods? ...... 23 4.1.1 Livelihood Strategies Overview ...... 23 4.1.2 Hunting as a livelihood strategy ...... 25

4.1.3 Households hunting on their farms...... 26 4.1.4 Formal members of Hunters Associations...... 27 4.1.5 Hunters with dogs...... 28 4.1.6 Hunter Livelihood Profiles ...... 30 4.1.7 Hunting Patterns ...... 30 4.1.8 Hunting as a source of income generation...... 35 4.1.9 Livelihood concerns related to hunting ...... 38 4.2 Bushmeat consumption ...... 40 4.2.1 Overview of the bushmeat commodity chain...... 40 4.2.2 Consumption Overview...... 42 4.2.3 Bushmeat consumption pattern ...... 43 4.2.4 Relationship between preference and consumption ...... 44 4.2.5 The role of price ...... 47 4.2.6 The role of Availability ...... 47 4.2.7 Bushmeat consumption at chopbars & drinking bars...... 50 4. DISCUSSION ...... 51 4.1 Hunting as a means of pest management ...... 51 4.2 Hunting interlinked with other livelihood activities...... 52 4.3 Hunters with dogs: responding to market signals ...... 53 4.4 Firearm Hunters: A shift in livelihood from hunting to agriculture?...... 54 4.5 A decline in household consumption of bushmeat...... 55 4.7 Implications for current and future policy action in Ghana ...... 56 4.8 Implications for future research ...... 58 4.9 Concluding remarks...... 60 REFERENCES...... 61 APPENDICES ...... 68 Appendix 1: Hunter Association Constitutions ...... 68 2.1: Kwaman Hunter Association...... 68 2.2: Jachie Hunter Association ...... 68 Appendix 2: List of cited bushmeat species...... 69 Appendix 3: Ghana’s Wildlife Laws and Regulations ...... 70 Appendix 4: Household Questionnaire...... 71 Appendix 5: Hunter Questionnaire...... 74 Appendix 6: Trader/Chopbar/Drinkingbar Questionnaire...... 76

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Bushmeat Commodity Chain Takoradi, Ghana...... 11 Figure 3.1: Map of Ghana, showing the road route between Kumasi and the two study sites; Kwaman and Jachie...... 17 Figure 4.1.1a: Percentage of economically active population involved in each livelihood activity carried out by males and females in the village Kwaman ...... 24 Figure 4.1.1b Percentage of economically active population involved in each ...... 25 livelihood activity carried out by males and females in Jachie village ...... 25 Figure 4.1.2: The hunting households motives for hunting for both Kwaman and Jachie...... 27 Figure 4.1.3: The Hunter Association members hunting motives...... 28 Figure 4.1.4: Hunters with dogs hunting motives...... 29 Figure 4.1.5: Annual calendar of possible explanatory variables...... 31 Figure 4.1.6: Annual hunting activity in Kwaman and Jachie...... 31 Figure 4.1.7: The annual patterns in ‘heavy’ and ‘low’ hunting intensity in Kwaman & Jachie....32 Figure 4.1.8: The annual patterns in ‘heavy hunting’ and ‘low hunting’ activity for Association members in Kwaman and Jachie...... 33 Figure 4.1.9: The annual patterns in ‘heavy hunting’ and ‘low hunting’ activity for hunters with dogs in Kwaman and Jachie...... 35 Figure 4.1.10a: Species reported being predominantly caught by hunters from both villages during heavy hunting...... 37 Figure 4.1.10b: Species reported being predominantly caught by hunters from both villages during low hunting ...... 37 Figure 4.1.11: Risk Map for hunters...... 38 Figure 4.2.1a: Trade flow patterns in the rural commodity chain for Kwaman...... 40 Figure 4.2.1b: Trade flow patterns in the rural commodity chain for Kwaman...... 40 Figure 4.2.1c: Trade flow patterns in the rural commodity chain for Jachie...... 41 Figure 4.2.1d: Trade flow patterns in the rural commodity chain for Jachie...... 41 Figure 4.2.2a: Consumption frequency of different protein food categories in Kwaman...... 43 Figure 4.2.2b: Consumption frequency of protein food type in Jachie ...... 43 Figure 4.2.3: Preferences of bushmeat, domestic meats and fish by households...... 44 Figure 4.2.4a: Frequency of consumption and preference scores of different food types for households in Kwaman...... 45 Figure 4.2.4b: Frequency of consumption and preference scores of different food types for households in Jachie ...... 45 Figure 4.2.5a: Frequency of consumption and preference scores for different bushmeat species in Kwaman...... 46 Figure 4.2.5b: Frequency of consumption and preference scores for different bushmeat species in Jachie...... 46 Figure 4.2.6: Where households from both villages obtain their bushmeat...... 48 Figure 4.2.7a: Where hunters sell their bushmeat during the heavy hunting...... 49 Figure 4.2.7b: Where hunters sell their bushmeat during the low hunting...... 49

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Village location and characteristics...... 17 Table 3.2: List of Key informants ...... 18 Table 3.3: Sampled household population in Kwaman and Jachie...... 20 Table 3.4: Definitions of the interviewed target groups...... 20 Table 4.1.1: Sampled Characteristics of Surveyed Hunters ...... 26 Table 4.1.2: Estimate ranges of income derived from hunting for different hunting strategies...... 36

Acronyms DRC: Dominion Republic of Congo SD: Standard Deviation M: Mean COMACO: Community markets for conservation

Cover photos: Left: Hunter Association member in Kwaman, Ghana Right: Bushmeat stew (made from giant rat (Cricetomys gambianus) from a drinking bar in Kwaman, Ghana Photos taken by Danylo bobyk: www.danylophotography.com

ABSTRACT

It is well recognized that the unsustainable hunting of wild game in the humid tropics of Central and Western Africa is not only a major threat to biodiversity but also impacts the people whose livelihoods depend upon bushmeat resources (Milner-Gulland et al. 2003; de Merode et al. 2004; Brown 2003). This research provides an in depth empirical assessment of the role of bushmeat in the livelihoods of hunters and in the diets of households. The research was conducted in two rural communities, Jachie and Kwaman, located in the Ashanti region of Ghana, a country characterized by a highly commercialized bushmeat trade. It took a microeconomic approach in order to understand how wider forces are influencing household and individual decision-making concerning bushmeat extraction and consumption.

Data were collected in both communities through a combination of systematically surveyed households and targeted interviews with hunters, traders, and chopbar owners. The research focused on describing community livelihood activities, hunting behaviours, household consumption and preference of bushmeat and the patterns of bushmeat trade within the rural commodity chain.

The results revealed that bushmeat plays a significant role in the livelihoods of the two rural communities; as a means to mitigate pests, as a seasonal source of income, and as an income safety net. The different hunting strategies were found to be deeply embedded within a mosaic of dynamic livelihood strategies practiced within the rural community. Bushmeat was not found to be a major component of the household diet of either rural village. Instead bushmeat is predominantly marketed to local chopbars and to the region’s main urban centre, Kumasi.

Ghana’s fast changing economy and shifting environmental conditions have complex implications for both hunting behaviour and consumer demand. More detailed insights into livelihood strategies are required to support the effective integration of livelihood perspectives into conservation efforts. Useful policy measures that address both conservation and community development issues should be attempted; including supporting agricultural development approaches that ensure compliance with conservation goals. Conservation and development policy actions have to be consistent with each other, and based on evidence.

Word count : 14949

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisors E.J. Milner-Gulland, Marcus Rowcliffe and James McNamara. It was a great privilege to take part in this project and contribute to addressing the challenging issues surrounding the bushmeat crisis. Their guidance and positive approach were always much appreciated. A special thank you to James who was extremely supportive during the fieldwork stage in Ghana, helping with all the logistical difficulties and making the experience even more adventurous. I would like to thank my parents who not only supported me financially but who were also always there to encourage me and listen to my countless joys and concerns. A thankyou to Danylo Bobyk who was able to capture Kwaman and Jachie so beautifully on camera. I am much obliged to Imperial College for providing a bursary that helped to pay for the many project costs. I am also extremely thankful to all the helpful residents of Kwaman and Jachie who made me feel welcome and at home in the villages, “Medasi sepaa”. I would particularly like to thank the founder and head of Kwaman’s Hunter Association, Monsieur Akwatia, who despite the logistic challenges of getting hold of hunters to interview, never lost hope or his smile. I am also extremely grateful to Madame Gyebua who let me stay in her home and shared dishes of bushmeat stews. And of course to everyone else in the village that I had the privilege to interview or talk to for being so open and interested in the project. Finally a big thank you to my research assistant, Mark Owusu, who was extremely dedicated to the study in not only making sure that it went smoothly but also in making sure that all individuals interviewed felt comfortable and clearly understood the objectives of the study.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Bushmeat crisis Throughout the world, humans have and continue to hunt bushmeat. Bushmeat hunting, defined as harvesting wild game, is particularly important in the humid tropics of West and Central Africa (Cowlishaw et al. 2005b). Bushmeat has been considered the most valuable tropical resource after timber and for thousands of years rural households have been reliant on hunting for both income and a source of protein (Cowlishaw et al. 2004; Bakarr et al. 2001; Barnes 2002; Bowen-Jones 1998; Bowen-Jones et al. 2002).

In the past few decades, however, the dependence on bush meat has become increasingly unsustainable resulting in the so-called “bushmeat crisis”. This unsustainability is largely attributed to the increase in demand for wild meat driven by rapid human population growth and rising income in urbanized areas (Milner-Gulland et al. 2003). In addition hunting has become increasingly efficient with the use of guns instead of the more traditional hunting methods such as traps and snares. This has led to a widespread overexploitation of wild mammal species, threatening their survival (Milner-Gulland et al. 2003; Jerozolimski and Peres 2003). In Ghana, a study by Brashares et al. (2001) suggests that bushmeat hunting has contributed to the rapid decline in population of 41 mammal species since the 1970s.

The bushmeat crisis is not only a major threat to biodiversity but also impacts the people whose livelihoods depend upon the resource (Milner-Gulland et al. 2003; de Merode et al. 2004). Bushmeat plays an important role in contributing to local economies throughout Central and Western Africa. Some even advocate that if the resource were managed sustainably it would help promote development (Brown 2003). In Cameroon, for instance, some households make a substantial proportion of their income ($83/month) during the peak bushmeat trading months from bushmeat hunting (Muchal and Ngandjui 1995). There have been concerns that the future reduction of the resource may have devastating consequences on the food security and overall well being of rural people (Brown 2003; Davies 2002; Bowen-Jones 2003). Although it still remains unclear to what extend this might be the case (Bennett 2002). In order to formulate effective solutions it is necessary to reconcile conservation goals with these livelihood concerns.

1.2 Importance of this research The persistence and sustainable use of wildlife are highly dependent upon the actions and decisions of a range of actors at various points and at different stages of the commodity chain-

from supply to consumption. It is therefore important to gain an understanding of the role and relative importance of bushmeat for each of the main actors. If policy change is to be effective over the longer term, it has to be embedded in local social norms and economic practices at the household level. More broadly, policy actions in different sectors, such as agricultural development and conservation have to be consistent with each other, and based on evidence.

Despite the obvious contributions bushmeat make to people’s socio-economic circumstances, there remains an insufficient understanding of the economic and social factors that determine how human populations rely on bushmeat (Brashares et al. 2011). Few empirical studies have explored the role of bushmeat in the livelihoods of rural communities, especially in terms its relative contribution to income and food economies (Ntiamoa-Baidu 1997, Damania et al. 2003, Davies and Brown 2007). It is increasingly clear that human reliance on bushmeat varies across time, space, and in different sectors of society. Moreover evidence suggests that the role of bushmeat is evolving and influenced by many overarching economic incentives and environmental factors, including urbanization (de Merode et al. 2004, Brashares et al. 2004).

A need therefore arises to formally qualify and quantify the dynamic nature and contribution of hunting as a component of livelihood strategies and examine how current consumption patterns of bushmeat are driving patterns of bushmeat supply, and hence having a potential negative impact on animal populations. More specifically it would be valuable to assess patterns of supply and consumption of bushmeat across different seasons in order to deepen our understanding of how actors may respond and are affected by seasonal environmental and economic change. Such an analysis would help explore how hunting behaviour and consumer demand may be indirectly affected and continue to change over time in the fast changing context of Western Africa. Understanding the role of bushmeat in light of these complex dynamics is important to inform policies for the future conservation of wildlife.

Established analytical frameworks such as the bushmeat commodity chain are important tools that help clarify issues and build dynamic and holistic understandings of local contexts. By touching upon such frameworks this research hopes to work towards developing a more comprehensive understanding the factors influencing rural consumptions and the interactions between hunting of bushmeat with other rural livelihoods and across the different seasons.

1.3 Aim and objectives The overarching aim of this research is to better understand the patterns of supply and demand of bushmeat in two villages in the Ashanti region of Ghana. In order to achieve this the

study will investigate the role of bushmeat hunting as a component of livelihood strategies within the household economy and examine current patterns of bushmeat consumption in two rural communities of Ghana.

The following four objectives shall be addressed:

a. Describe hunting strategies and their seasonal patterns b. Assess the role of hunting positioned within other livelihoods c. Assess the rural demand for bushmeat and their drivers d. Describe the bushmeat rural commodity chain

To achieve this fieldwork was carried out in two rural communities located in the Ashanti region of Ghana. Surveys of varying depth were carried out between May and June 2011 to address the research aim and objectives. Published literature on livelihoods and bushmeat in similar areas was reviewed to complement the fieldwork.

1.4 Thesis structure In this thesis, I first give a brief background summarizing recent research identify where current knowledge is moving and where there are gaps. I then discuss bushmeat exploitation in the context of Ghana and describe the study sites. I then lay out a detailed explanation of the studies methodology and subsequently present the research findings. Finally I will discuss the key research findings, related to the specific research questions addressed, with respect to existing literature and make recommendation in terms of future policy and research.

2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Bushmeat Commodity Chain

2.1.1 Commodity Chain Overview The analysis of the different sectors contributing to bushmeat exploitation has largely been looked at in isolation. Only recently have studies started investigating the detailed structure of communities in terms of a commodity chain, from its point of extraction to consumption (Cowlishaw et al. 2004; Bowen-Jones et al. 2003). A commodity chain can be defined as:

« a series of interlinked exchanges through which a commodity and its constituents pass from extraction or harvesting through production to end use » (Ribot 1998)

The commodity chain obviously cannot include all wider macroeconomic and political issues, but it is able to integrate all sectors of production into one framework (Kaplinsky and Morris 2001; Bowen-Jones et al. 2003). The use of commodity chains provides a clear structure to investigate each section of the chain and helps build an understanding of how they interact. Previous research had been less interested in such analysis because they had primarily been focused on understanding the biological characteristics of the trade rather then linking it together with the socioeconomic components (Cowlishaw et al. 2005a).

A large number of different actors are involved and receive benefits throughout the commodity chain (Cowlishaw et al. 2005a; Mendelson et al. 2003). For example Cowlishaw et al. (2005a) identified five main actors in the urban setting during a study in Ghana’s third largest city on the South Western city of Takoradi (Myers et al. 2000). Figure 2.1 illustrates the linkages between the identified actors and the traded volumes (Cowlishaw et al. 2005a). The study also highlighted that the urban market structure primarily followed one particular route, from commercial hunters- wholesalers- to chopbars, with limited amount of trade occurring along other routes. The commodity chain could also be much shorter, involving fewer actors. For example in a rural setting hunters may exclusively consume their bush meat or directly sell it to chopbars.

Despite the increased research attention on describing the commodity chain in relation to bushmeat, it remains insufficiently understood. It is often unclear to what extent each different group of actors contribute to bushmeat trade and consumption (Bowen-Jones et al. 2003). It is important to increase our understanding of the multi dimensions of the bushmeat trade in order to promote potential interdisciplinary policies and understand their impacts. In the following sections

I will present an overview of two sections along the bushmeat commodity chain; bushmeat supply and consumption.

Figure 2.1: Bushmeat Commodity Chain Takoradi, Ghana. The figure represents the pattern in trade of bushmeat between the different actors. The width of each arrow is proportional to the volume of fresh bushmeat traded. (Cowlishaw et al. 2005a)

2.1.2 Hunting: Bushmeat Supply There exists a wide range of different types of bushmeat hunters, primarily varying in their behaviour and their underlying motivations to hunt. Hunters will use different techniques to catch wildlife such as snares, traps, firearms, dogs and poisoning (Bowen -Jones et al. 2003). The use of the different methods range from being passive, such as trapping, to active, such as firearm hunting. The use of the more modern hunting techniques such as firearms tends to be relatively more precise in prey choice compared to trapping (Cowlishaw et al. 2004). It is also estimated that firearms increase the rate of return by up to 25 times (Wilkie and Carpenter 1999). The type of gear used however tends not to be static but has been found to vary seasonally. For example in Cameroon hunting with guns increases during the dry season when primates become more susceptible by grouping near at close proximities to fruit trees (Muchaal and Ngandjui 1999, Davis and Brown 2007).

The distinction between the different types of hunters often remains unclear, as hunters may use several hunting techniques and be involved in a diversity of livelihood activities (Bowen- Jones and Pendry 1999). 11

2.1.3 Consumption: Bushmeat Demand Ultimately the bushmeat reaches the last step along the commodity chain, the consumption of the resource. To reach the consumers the bushmeat may be transferred from the hunters to traders or in some cases sold directly to the consumers (Cowlishaw et al. 2004).

The factors driving bushmeat demand and ultimately consumption are still not well understood. Consumption patterns of bushmeat could be influenced by food security, economic factors and/or preferences. In terms of food security bushmeat may be an essential component of household diets, as households may not have access to many other sources of protein (Elliot 2002; Brown 2003). Consumption may also be linked to wealth, price and availability of bushmeat and alternatives. For instance in Equatorial Guinea the Budi ethnic group generally only consumes the more affordable and widely available bushmeat species (Fa et al. 2002). Finally preferences, potentially shaped by traditions, may also influence bushmeat consumption. In Gabon a study investigated preference between domestic meat and bushmeat amongst consumers using a taste test and found only a small preference for bushmeat amongst rural consumers (Schenck et al. 2006). Understanding the determinants of consumption patterns would help predict how consumption may be altered by policy measures and contextual changes, such as increasing urbanization.

Rural and urban areas have become increasingly interlinked through the rising commercialization of bushmeat. Hunters are now in close relationship with both rural and urban consumers (Bowens-Jones et al. 2003). The commodity chain has thus become increasingly complex and much more influenced by wider social and economic forces.

2.2 The Livelihood Approach

2.2.1 Importance of hunting in rural livelihoods In the past the bushmeat trade has largely been seen as a threat to wildlife without taking into consideration the trade’s social dimensions and the benefits to livelihoods (Bowen-Jones et al. 2003; Brown 2003). However since the late 1990s bushmeat orientated research has become increasingly concerned with rural livelihoods and have started studying hunting in the context of the wider rural economy (e.g. Scoones 1992; Bowen-Jones et al. 2003; de Merode et al. 2003; Brown 2003).

Throughout sub Saharan Africa bushmeat is a valuable natural resource and most hunting provides an important means to increase household protein consumption, and/or boost household 12

income (de Merode et al. 2004; Cowlishaw et al. 2005a; Juste et al. 1995; Chardonnet et al. 1995; Elliot 2002; Fa et al. 2002). Hunting can also be important for other reasons such as to maintain a family tradition or to control crop pests (Davies 1990).

Early studies suggested that rural households in extreme poverty have been particularly dependent on consuming wild foods for subsistence (Fa et al. 2003; Ntiamoa-Baidu 1995; Scoones et al. 1992; Pinstrup-Andersen et al. 2001). In the Congo Basin it is estimated that hunting typically contributes between 30-80% of protein consumed by forest dwelling households (Koppert et al. 1996). However recent evidence from Western Africa suggests that households have become increasingly more commercially orientated, with bushmeat acting as an important source of income (Kumpel 2006, PhD thesis; de Merode et al. 2004; Wilkie et al. 1992). De Merode et al. (2003) estimated that in the DRC more then 90% of the harvested fish and bushmeat is sold rather than consumed by hunters. Similarly in Ghana where wild foods are reported to still consist of a large proportion of household level production, most bushmeat is not consumed but sold to the markets (Cowlishaw et al. 2004). Crookes et al. (2007) suggests that in Ghana this relationship varies depending on the community’s distance to the main bushmeat markets. This increased commercialization of bushmeat has been largely attributed to the increasing demand for bushmeat from urban populations (Fa et al. 2000; Davies and Brown 2007).

Studies have also provided evidence that hunting is not always necessarily a full time occupation, providing income and food throughout the year. Instead it acts as a short-term fall back activity, which can act as a buffer during times of hardship (e.g. Schulte-Herbruggen 2011- PhD thesis; de Merode et al. 2004; Illukpitiya et al. 2010). In this way hunting helps maintain a sustainable livelihood by smoothing income fluctuations (Illukpitiya et al. 2008). In Ghana where livelihoods are largely built on agricultural farming, such as cocoa farming, people suffer from strains in wellbeing with the seasonal declines in food stocks and cash availability during the agricultural lean season (Falconer 1992; Dei 1989). It is thought that bushmeat hunting was being used as an important means to obtain cash during this difficult period lean agricultural, with bushmeat supply reported to reflect such seasonal changes (Ntiamoa-Baidu 1998; Falconer 1992). Both Solly (2004) in Cameroon and de Merode et al. (2003) in DRC found similar evidence that bushmeat hunting was an important safety net to obtain small but regular income during the lean agricultural season. It still however remains unclear to what degree household economies may benefit from bushmeat compared to other income sources or food economies (Davies and Brown 2007). Moreover the dynamic nature of these benefits within the rural economy still remains poorly understood. 13

2.2.2 Hunting interlinked with other livelihood activities Rural livelihoods are often based on a diversity of deeply intertwined pathways (Scoones 2009). For instance studies indicate that many bushmeat hunters are often also farmers probably given the fact that the most common source of employment in rural Africa is seasonal agricultural work (Mendelson et al. 2003; Ntiamoa-Baidu 1998; Damania et al. 2005, Brashares et al. 2011). Farmers might hunt through the use of traps on their farms and nearby forests or they may actively go out to hunt with the use of guns. The amount of time and resources that a household may invest in hunting may be highly dependent on the households other livelihood activities (Damania et al. 2005). Brashares et al. (2011) provides evidence that hunting activity for hunters in Ghana and Tanzania, varies seasonally with peak agricultural activity, increasing when they were not occupied with agricultural work. Yet it still remains unclear what governs bushmeat harvesting and how hunting is embedded within a broader range of livelihood activities (Damania et al. 2005).

A few studies have examined how the effect of agriculture intensification on hunting. Illukpitiya et al. (2010) proposes that in the context of communities located near the forest peripheries, far away from markets, promoting farming intensification does indeed reduce household dependency on forest products, including bushmeat, for subsistence (Illukpitiya et al. 2010). The study demonstrates that for the sites under investigation improving agricultural management practices by a mere 10% reduces forest goods extraction by between 27-75%. Conversely Somnasang et al. (1988) suggests that improving agricultural practices actually leads to an increased consumption on certain wildlife populations. This occurs because such measures increase the availability of suitable habitat for ‘pest’ species such as rodents. Thereby this example shows where agricultural intensification may increase bushmeat harvesting of a certain kind without necessarily threatening conservation.

Damania et al. (2005) developed a household model in order to explore in depth the relationship between hunting and agriculture based on data from Ghana’s Ashanti region. The model suggests the relationship is ambiguous and may be context specific. For example investing more into agricultural intensification will have complex effects by both reducing the availability of time for hunting and increasing household income. The rise in income could subsequently lead to an increase in household demand of bushmeat. In addition enhanced income may increase the use of more efficient hunting equipment, such as guns, to hunt, putting the targeted more vulnerable wildlife species at greater risk (Damania et al. 2005). These studies highlight that in relation to bushmeat, changes in agricultural practices actually may have unpredictable 14

consequences on livelihood strategies and ultimately conservation objectives. If the relationships are clearly understood local conservation initiatives could potentially move towards simultaneously reducing bushmeat hunting and improving agricultural benefits.

2.4 Bushmeat in Ghana

2.4.1 Overview Historically bushmeat has played an important role in the Ghanaian economy, an economy largely based on smallholder agriculture (Grubb et al. 1998). Records of the bushmeat trade in Ghana date back to the fifteen century by De Marees who noted that smoked meat was being traded over long distances across the country (Cowlishaw et al. 2004).

In recent times Ghana’s bushmeat trade has been characterized as being highly commercialized, supplying both households within the rural community and urban areas (Brashares et al. 2001; Davies and Brown 2007). Rural people continue to consider bushmeat as one of the forest’s most valuable food products and an important component of their livelihoods (Ntiamoa Baidu 1997; Crookes et al. 2007; Falconer 1992).

In the last decade there have been increasing concerns about Ghana’s rapidly declining wildlife and the sustainability of the bushmeat trade. National surveys indicate that certain species, particularly charismatic species such as primates and large ungulates, have greatly diminished throughout the country (Ntiamoa- Baidu 1998). Concerns have especially been expressed on the high rates of local extinctions in protected areas (Brashares et al. 2001). Moreover Ghana has faced extensive levels of deforestation in the last two decades with an estimated 80% of total forest cover being destroyed (Opoku 2006). However there are suggestions that in some areas of Ghana the bushmeat trade could be sustained if it consisted only of supplying the less vulnerable mammal species such as African giant rats and grasscutters (Cowlishaw et al. 2004, 2005a).

The bushmeat trade and hunting in Ghana remains largely unregulated (Holbech 1998). Current policy to reduce hunting pressure and promote a sustainable bushmeat trade focuses on the reduction of hunting primarily through the Wild Animal Preservation Act 1961. This identifies species and age classes of species that are protected from hunting and restricts hunting during the closed season. However the lack of enforcing these regulations and public awareness makes them largely ineffective (Rowcliffe et al. 2004). Market data has provided evidence that bushmeat continues to be traded during the closed season (Ntiamoa-Naidu 1998; Crookes et al. 2006).

2.4.2 Study Site: Ashanti region The Ashanti region is part of the Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystem, a biodiversity hotspot and primarily consists of a mixture of secondary forest and agricultural land (Caspary 1999). The region has experienced relatively rapid economic growth in the past few decades and is considered the most rapidly growing region in the country. According to the 2000 Population and Housing Census Report, the region is the most populous in Ghana representing 19.1% of the nations population (Ghana Census 2000).

At present rural livelihoods in the Ashanti region are centered on agriculture. The primary source of income for the majority of rural households consists of the production cash crops including cocoa, oil palm, tobacco, cotton, citrus and cashew. Other crops such as maize, cassava and plantain are primarily grown for subsistence (Ghana Statistical Service 2008). Hunting remains more of an additional activity combined with farming rather than a major occupation in itself (Ondonkor et al 2007; Marfo et al. 2002; Falconer 1992). Nonetheless, there is evidence that bushmeat and other open access forest resources continue to remain central to rural livelihoods of the region, especially for poorer households (Crookes et al. 2007).

3. METHODS 3.1 Data Collection Data were gathered in two villages in the Ashanti region of Ghana during a period of approximately 6 weeks during May 16th to June 23rd 2011. Data were collected through the combination of the following different methodologies.

3.1.1 Selection of Villages In 2010 James McNamara, an Imperial College London PhD student, visited Ghana and with the help of the Wildlife Division identified two villages in the Ashanti region with active Hunting Associations. By selecting two villages at different degrees of influence to urban market factors, it was hoped to have sufficient variation between sites so as to allow empirical comparisons and conclusions to be drawn. Jachi is located close to the regions capital Kumasi while Kwaman is further afield (Table & Figure 3.1).

Table 3.1: Village location and characteristics Village Longitude Latitude Elevation (meters) Distance to Kumasi (km) Kwaman 6 58'30.32" N 1 16'19.66" W 486 48 Jachie 6 34'02.13" N 1 31'15.31" W 226 12

Figure 3.1: Map of Ghana, showing the road route between Kumasi and the two study sites; Kwaman and Jachie. Source: Google Maps.

3.1.2 Research assistant The native language of the study sites consists of the local dialect Twi. A research assistant was hired to help with translation and with the organisation of household interviews and focus groups. The research assistant is a native of Kumasi and is currently a Master’s student at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology in Kumasi. He is fluent in english and had extensive experience in carrying out socio-economic surveys and related interviews, which proved very useful during this study.

3.1.3 Key informants & Focus Groups Upon arrival in each village, the research team introduced and discussed the research project to the village chief. Once the chief had provided community approval for the research to proceed, the research objectives were explained to the community through an official announcement.

The following two days in each village were spent carrying out discussions with key informants and conducting one focus group discussion with village hunters. Additional discussions with key informants were carried out throughout the fieldwork. Table 3.2 lists the key informants who were interviewed in each village.

Table 3.2: List of Key informants Village List of key informants Kwaman The head of the Hunter Association, the Hunter Association chairman, a young male farmer, an elderly female farmer, village revenue collector and the Cultural chief. Jachie The head of the Hunter Association, hunter Association Secretary, a dog hunter and a chopbar owner

The focus groups with hunters in each village were organized with the help of the Hunter Associations. The focus group discussions took place with 9 hunters in Kwaman and 8 hunters in Jachie and lasted around 90 minutes. The discussions were structured with open-ended questions in order to gain insight on the community. The first half of the focus group discussions consisted of discussing rural livelihoods in general; listing the village’s main livelihood activities, discussing the community's understanding of seasonality, characterizing the agricultural calendar and ranking it’s perceived difficulties. The second half focused on discussing hunting as a livelihood option, the seasonality of hunting, and the difficulties hunters were currently facing. The focus group discussions provided important qualitative information, which was used in the finalization of the household and hunter questionnaires. 18

3.1.4 Household Sampling method A total of 87 and 90 households in Kwaman and Jachie respectively were sampled using a systematic sampling scheme. This involved the selection of households to interview at intervals of on average 10 households. The sampling interval was chosen to ensure that the full geographical area of the village was covered by the survey. However given time constraints and Jachie’s relatively large size, only the western and eastern distinct geographical sections of the village were surveyed. The southern section, which was separated from the other two sections by a main road, was not surveyed. If the members of a household refused to be interviewed, the closest household was approached.

3.1.5 Structured Household Interviews The household questionnaires were prepared and reviewed in the UK before reaching the study sites. The questions were then revised after the focus group discussions on the field. The translator translated the final questionnaire into Twi but unfortunately due to time and personnel constraints there was no back translation performed. The questionnaire was then field tested on one household. A pilot study was unfortunately not possible given limited time constraints in the field.

Interviews took place when the adult household members were expected to be home. This was normally early in the morning (7-10 am) and late afternoons and evenings (3-7 pm). Interviews did not take place on Sundays or during religious holidays. During the household interviews I focussed on interviewing the household head to get approximations for the household as a whole. The average interview time was around 45 minutes but ranged from 25 to 82 minutes, depending on the number of household members and household livelihood activities.

The questionnaire focused on assessing household livelihood activities and patterns of bushmeat consumption and preferences (Appendix 4). When estimating the number of household individuals, only household members who reported as currently sleeping in the household and sharing food and other resources were included. Household wealth was assessed through a set of quantified measures related to the ownerships of land, livestock, vehicles, and consumer goods. Some questions were designed to match with those included in pre-tested demographic surveys and household surveys studying bushmeat. This was done to facilitate comparison of results.

Table 3.3 describes the sampled population of both villages. The economically active populations reflect a total of 19 livelihood activities in Kwaman and a total of 29 livelihood activities in Jachie (Figure 4.1a&b).

Table 3.3: Sampled household population in Kwaman and Jachie. The total number of economically active adults excludes the elderly, students, and those with impairing health problems. Village Total Total number of Total number of Total number of number of adults children (<15yrs) economically active Households (15 yrs and older) adults Kwaman 87 431 331 349 Jachie 90 366 239 262 Total 177 797 570 611

3.1.6 Interviews with specific target groups The targeted questionnaires were also prepared and reviewed in the UK before reaching the study site and revised in the field after the focus group discussions. Questionnaire-driven individual interviews were conducted with hunters, bushmeat traders, chopbar owner and drinking bar owners identified through the snowball sampling technique (Table 3.4). This technique was used because based on previous studies (e.g. Crookes et al. 2007) it was anticipated that not a sufficient number of so called ‘hunters’, chopbar owners, or bushmeat traders would be surveyed through the household interviews.

Table 3.4: Definitions of the interviewed target groups Actor Definition Hunter A person who self assessed hunting as a major livelihood activity both on and off their farm Trader A person who engaged in buying and selling bushmeat to the urban or rural community Chopbar owner A person who regularly served bushmeat and/or other animal protein sources in prepared dishes along with a staple, which normally consisted of ‘fufu’ Drinking bar A person who serves alcoholic beverages and occasionally owner prepares dishes of bushmeat without a staple

A total of 51 hunters were identified and interviewed. The hunter interviews took around 35 minutes. The hunter questionnaires collected information on individual demographics, hunting technique, seasonal variation in off-take, consumption and trading patterns (Appendix 5). Relative wealth between individuals was assessed based on individuals self reporting how comfortable they considered themselves relative to income status of the rest of the community; comfortable, coping,

struggling.

Finally, a total of 3 traders, 9 chopbar owners and 5 drinking bar owners were interviewed using the same questionnaire (Appendix 6). These interviews took around 25 minutes. The questionnaires collected information on individual demographic, consumer preferences and seasonal variation in trade. Relative wealth was also assessed based on individuals self-reporting how comfortable they considered themselves relative to income status of the rest of the community.

Since these local actors were trading with the local hunters we was able to gain an understanding the rural commodity chain.

3.1.7 Ethics The confidentiality of the data collected from each interviewed individual and household was guaranteed at the beginning of each interview and consent to the interview was secured. In order to ensure that they remained anonymous we never recorded individual names but assigned each household or individual with an identification number. We were also very clear about the intentions and objectives of this study in order to not inflate expectations.

3.2 Statistical analysis All analyses were performed using the R statistical package 2011 version 2.13.1 and all graphics were performed in Microsoft Excel 2008 version 12.3.0.

3.2.1 Descriptive Analysis All households interviewed were included in the analysis of the each communities livelihood characteristics and the consumption and preference analyses (87- Kwaman, 90-Jachie). However only the hunters whom were actively hunting at the time of the interview were included in the hunter analysis. 2 hunters were omitted from the analysis because they had not hunted within 2 years prior to the interviews. Data from one other hunter was also discarded because the hunter appeared intoxicated during the interview, questioning the reliability of the data. The hunter analyses were run on 51 individuals, including 42 hunters who were members of the Hunter Associations and 9 hunters with dogs.

When assessing the seasonality of hunting many confounding variables seemed to be influencing hunting activity. A statistical model was therefore not used and conclusions were drawn through the comparison of graphs supplemented by qualitative data. For each month the number of hunters reporting to hunt, hunt heavily and hunt at low levels were summed. ‘Heavy

hunting’ refers to when hunters reported that they tend to hunt the most. The ‘low hunting’ refers to when hunters reported that they hunted the least. The frequencies were then graphed to illustrate the monthly hunting patterns (Figure 4.6 – 4.9). Heavy hunting frequencies were plotted against the positive y-axis and the low hunting frequencies were plotted against the negative y-axis.

A risk map was produced for hunters based on individual hunters identifying and ranking perceived problems that they faced. The risks were mapped according the method described by Smith et al. (2000).

Finally by interviewing actors along the commodity chain from extraction to consumption I was able to gain an understanding of the structure and pattern of bushmeat trade within the rural community. The rural commodity chain was drawn for both the low and heavy hunting activity based on the ranked data from the questionnaires.

One sampled t tests and Fisher’s exact tests were used to test significant differences between villages, groups of hunters, and heavy or low hunting activity. An ANOVA was used to analyze variance of means between datasets when assessing whether older hunters were more prone to hunting during times of hardship. Significance for all tests were accepted where p ≤ 0.05.

4. RESULTS

The two parts of the results section focus on addressing the four key research questions. The first section assesses the role of hunting in people’s livelihoods. To do this, the section examines patterns in hunting activities and relates them to other livelihood activities. The second section considers the importance of bushmeat as a food commodity for households by assessing rural demand. More specifically it describes consumption patterns and preferences of both households and chopbar owners. Each of the sections shall touch upon how the role of bushmeat varies between the two study sites, Kwaman and Jachie.

4.1 What role does hunting play in people’s livelihoods?

4.1.1 Livelihood Strategies Overview The livelihood strategies observed in the villages Kwaman and Jachie were composed of a wide range of different activities.

Agriculture was the most common livelihood activity among both men and women in both villages, involving 70% and 41% of economically active adults in Kwaman and Jachie respectively (Figures 4.1.1a & 4.1.1b). This involved 97% of all households in Kwaman and 70% in Jachie. Farmers tended to farm for both income and for subsistence. 56% of households in Kwaman and 24% in Jachie stated that they were primarily farming for income; defined as the production of agricultural goods for sale. The rest were primarily farming for subsistence; defined as farming for the households own food consumption. The main cash crops consisted of cocoa and maize, together providing the primary source of income for 76 % and 34% of all households in each village respectively. These results are consistent with the 2008 Ghana Living Standards survey which indicates that cocoa and maize are the two most important cash crops in the forest zone (Ghana Statistical Service 2008). Other crops grown in both villages consisted of cassava, plantain, yam, coco-yam, ground nuts, citrus fruits and palm. Other fruits and vegetables such as pineapple, tomatoes, eggplants and avocado were also commonly grown but in relatively small quantities.

The second most frequent livelihood activity consisted of trading, involving 14% and 20% of economically active adults interviewed across the two villages. Casual labor, which included a variety of different activities such as carpentry, hairdressing and masonry, was also frequently reported. The remaining livelihood activities (such as teaching, nursing, employment as a security guard or driver) were each carried out by one or a few individuals in both villages. Individuals 23

who had not been working for a wage, profit or family gain in the last month, but expressed willingness to undertake such work prior to the interview were defined as unemployed (International Labour Organization 1982). Under that definition the unemployment rate at the time of the survey in Kwaman and Jachie was 2.55 % and 11.48 % respectively of the surveyed economically active adult population. However it is important to recognize that this calculation might vary across the seasons. The Jachie estimate is much larger then the national estimate of 3.9% for unemployment in rural areas (Ghana living standards survey 2008). This may relate to Jachie being situated only 12 km away from a major urban center, Kumasi, where unemployment is also high (16% according to Ghana’s 2000 Census).

90.00% Male 80.00% Female 70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Percentage of economically active population

livelihood activities

Figure 4.1.1a: Percentage of economically active population involved in each livelihood activity carried out by males and females in the village Kwaman (n=349). This excluded the elderly, students, and individuals with a severe health condition. ‘Other’ includes a policeman, security guard, architect, chopbar owner and 2 food processors.

70.00% Men 60.00% Women

50.00%

40.00%

30.00% individuals 20.00%

10.00% Percentage of economically active 0.00%

Livelihood Activities Figure 4.1.1b Percentage of economically active population involved in each livelihood activity carried out by males and females in Jachie village (n=262). This excluded the elderly, students, and individuals with a severe health condition. ‘Other’ includes a soldier, tax collector, lotto agent, herbalist, pastor, game center owner, telecommunication employee and 2 employees of the disabilities centre.

4.1.2 Hunting as a livelihood strategy During the household interviews a total of 37 in Kwaman and 11 households in Jachie reported ‘actively hunting’ on their farms (43% and 13% of all households, 45% and 19% of farming household). The majority of these households reported hunting with traps but did not refer to hunting as their household’s livelihood activity. However of these hunting households, 4 in Kwaman and 1 in Jachie had members who explicitly referred to themselves as ‘hunters’, with a total of 6 hunters. These hunters were all men and represent a very small proportion of economically active respondents in each village (1.4% and 0.4% in Kwaman and Jachie respectively).

During the targeted interviews a total of 51 ‘hunters’ were interviewed of which 42 were members of the Hunters Association and another 9 hunters were not members. Members of the Hunters Association predominantly used firearms as their hunting strategy. All the non-members hunted with dogs and I refer to these as ‘hunters with dogs’ (Table 4.1.1).

Three different categories of hunters were identified; 1. Households hunting on their own farms, 2. Formal members of the Hunter Associations, and 3. the non-members of the Association who were hunting with dogs. 25

Table 4.1.1: Sampled Characteristics of Surveyed Hunters

Households hunting on their No. of ‘hunters’ Interviewed farms No. of Percentage of all households households No. of hunters Total no. of hunting on hunting on their in the Hunter No. of hunters ‘hunters’ their farms farms Association with dogs Interviewed Kwaman 37 42.5% 26 2 28 Jachie 12 13.3% 16 7 23 Total 42 27.7% 42 9 51

4.1.3 Households hunting on their farms Of the households who reported hunting on their farms the primary hunting strategy used was traps (95%- Kwaman, 83%- Jachie of hunting households). Only a small number used both firearms and traps (7 households- Kwaman, 2 households- Jachie). Only 2 households in Kwaman only used firearms (5% of Kwaman's hunting households). However a large proportion of these hunting households reported that they did not hunt themselves but hired other villagers to set traps or go gun hunting on their land (38% - Kwaman, 33% - Jachie). When hunters were hired, the households reported that they themselves rarely benefited in terms of bushmeat food or income from the animals trapped or shot. Occasionally the hired hunters would offer households some bushmeat as a gift.

In nearly all cases hunting was used as a means to control pests (92% in Kwaman, 100% in Jachie) and not necessarily to supplement household income or food (Figure 4.1.2). However food was ranked predominantly as the second reason for hunting. Income was rarely cited as a reason (only mentioned by 5 households). The hunting households reported catching rodent species such as grasscutters, grass squirrels and giant rats. However with the use of guns, other larger ungulate species such as Maxwell's duiker (Cephalophus maxwelli ), royal antelope (Neotragus pygmaeus) and bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) were also mentioned as being occasionally killed.

120.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0% 3rd Choice

40.0% 2nd Choice 1st Choice 20.0% % of hunting households

0.0% Pest Control Food Income Motives for hunting

Figure 4.1.2: The hunting households motives for hunting for both Kwaman and Jachie (n=49). Data obtained from response to question D4 in the Household survey, Appendix 4.

Household hunting activity was significantly and positively related to reported crop damage (X-squared = 6.45, df = 1, p-value = 0.011). Households who had been affected negatively by crop pests tended to be more likely to engage in hunting. In addition these hunting households reported hunting largely between May-July. This time of year corresponded with the beginning of the maize season, which according to the interviewed farmers attracted many crop pests. This period of the year was also marked by the beginning of the rainy season, which facilitated placing traps in places where animal tracks were evident. Grasscutters (Thryonomys swinderianus) were described as being able to destroy an acre of land within one week if nothing was done to stop them.

Given the fact that the majority of households did not consider themselves as ‘hunters’ (and were hunting in order to protect their crops from crop pests and not primarily for food or income) the rest of the analysis will focus on individuals hunters who saw hunting as significant component of their livelihood activities.

4.1.4 Formal members of Hunters Associations All of the Hunter Association hunters interviewed used firearms. Under the Hunters Association's own guidelines the use of traps is illegal. Despite this a large proportion of association hunters (38%) admitted to also using traps on their farms. These hunters owned on average 105 traps each.

The majority reported that their primary reason for hunting was income (71%, Figure 4.1.3). Hunting for food however was mentioned by a small proportion as the main reason, and was also frequently listed as the second reason for hunting (64%). Hunting to control crop pests was never mentioned as a first choice but often mentioned as a third motive (41%).

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 3rd Choice 40.0% 2nd Choice 30.0% 1st Choice 20.0%

% of surveyed gun hunters 10.0% 0.0% Income Food Pest control Tradition Motives for Hunting

Figure 4.1.3: The Hunter Association members hunting motives. Data obtained from hunter survey, question 11 Appendix 5. (n = 42)

The majority of the above hunters indicated that they hunt at night (69%) with a rifle and a headlamp or carbide. 3 hunters hunted only during the day (0.1%). Association members would often trace and clear their hunting route with a ‘cutlass’ during the day before setting out to follow the route later at night. The species that were reported to be most often caught was either ungulates such as bushbucks, royal antelope and Maxwell's duikers or rodents such as grasscutters (Thryonomys swinderianus), ground squirrels (Xerus erythropus) and giant rats (Cricetomys gambianus) (Figure 4.1.10a). The direct costs associated with hunting were often reported as minimal relative to the benefits. The main costs mentioned included bullets and touch batteries. However some hunters argued that bullets were in fact a negligible cost if you were a ‘good’ hunter because they were only used when something was actually killed.

4.1.5 Hunters with dogs Hunters with dogs were not members of the Hunter Association. These individuals did not report using guns or traps but instead used dogs and cutlasses. They reported similar reasons as Association members for hunting, with income cited by the majority as the first choice (8 individuals: Figure 4.1.4). Hunters with dogs would hunt during the day either alone or in groups 28

(Average: 3.6, range: 1-6 individuals). When hunters went out in groups, one of them would often be sent out ahead as a scout in order to locate animals. Once wild animals had been located the group would send the dogs to kill the animals while the hunters came up behind armed with cutlasses. Rodents such as grasscutters (Thryonomys swinderianus) and giant rats (Cricetomys gambianus) were most often caught in this way, however larger ungulates were also sometimes killed (Figure 4.1.10b). The only additional direct cost related to hunting with dogs was the cost of feeding them.

120.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0% 3rd Choice 2nd Choice 40.0% 1st Choice 20.0% % of surveyed dog hunters 0.0% Income Food Pest control Tradition Motives for hunting

Figure 4.1.4: Hunters with dogs hunting motives. Answers to question 11 in Appendix 5: Hunter Interview (n hunters= 9).

The average age of all the hunters, both Association members and hunters with dogs was 47.4 yrs (SD±15.17) with an age range of 18-75. This is similar to the average age of 42.4 and age range of 23-70 reported in a study on hunters in the Ashanti region of Ghana by Crookes et al. (2007). Association members were on average significantly older then hunters with dogs, (t = 4.25, df = 11.9, p value= 0.0011). Hunters with dogs tended to be on average 30.8 yrs (SD=±12.82) while Association hunters were on average 50.9 yrs (SD=±13.24). The majority of all hunters combined had finished Junior High School (64%). A small proportion had completed secondary school (9.6%). However the remaining 23% had been educated up to the primary level.

The hunters spent an average 8.21 hours per hunting trip (SD= ±2.93), which was a little longer than the average time reported by Crookes et al. (2007) (5.83 hours, SD = ±3.8). On average hunters with dogs would hunt 5 days per week (SD= ±1) during the heavy hunting months, which was significantly higher than Association members’ average of 3.24 trips (SD= ±1.6; t = 4.23, df = 18.2, p-value = 0.0005).

4.1.6 Hunter Livelihood Profiles None of the hunters interviewed solely relied on hunting for a living. In the majority of cases, hunting was combined with farming (93%- Kwaman, 88%- Jachie). Some individuals combined hunting and farming with another livelihood activity such as carpentry, masonry, or shoe making (29% of all hunters).

Hunters with dogs were more likely to combine three or more livelihood activities compared to Association members who tended to combine only two (X-squared = 9.65, df = 1, p- value = 0.002). Association members were more likely to combine hunting with farming (X- squared = 4.13, df = 1, p-value = 0.042) than hunters with dogs who were more prone to combine hunting not with farming but with other jobs such as security guard, masonry, and shoe making.

4.1.7 Hunting Patterns 5 factors were described as being important in influencing hunting behavior and the observed hunting pattern; the two seasons of the year (‘wet’ and ‘dry’); the ‘lean period’; the heavy agricultural period; and the Closed season for hunting (Figure 4.15).

Ghana has two distinct seasons during the year the wet season between April and October. And the dry season between November and March. According to the household surveys the ‘lean period’, a time marked by scarcity in household income and food from crops and other food sources, is between June-August. The name for July is locally known as ‘Kitawonsa’, which translated into “No food, no money, hold your hands to not steal”. The months of heavy agricultural work for maize and cocoa falls between May 1st to Dec 1st in both villages according to key informants and the two hunter focus groups. The Closed season for hunting is governed by Ghana’s Wildlife Division and is set between Aug 1st to Dec 1st each year. During this period hunting is illegal except for certain species such as grasscutters.

Wet Season

Dry Season

Closed Season Heavy Agriculture activity Lean season

Month

Figure 4.1.5: Annual calendar of possible explanatory variables. The calendar illustrates the months of Ghana’s two seasons and the time period of heavy agriculture activity for maize and cocoa farming, the lean season and the hunting Closed season.

Only 25% of hunters claimed to hunt all year round. The majority of hunters reported hunting between January and July (Figure 4.1.6). Less then half of surveyed hunters reported that they hunted throughout the period August to December, also known as Closed season (42.3% of all ‘hunters’).

100.00% Kwaman 90.00% Jachie 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% Percentage of hunting hunters 10.00% 0.00%

Months Figure 4.1.6: Annual hunting activity in Kwaman and Jachie. The graph shows the percentage of all hunters that reported hunting during each given month. (Kwaman-n=28, Jachie-n=23). Answer to question B(1a&b) from Hunter survey: Appendix 5.

Hunting effort, however, was not as homogenous as it might appear from Figure 4.16 but instead varied across the months of hunting activity. When hunters were asked when they tended to hunt the most (referred to as the ‘heavy hunting’), the majority of hunters said that they concentrated their efforts between January to March. When hunters were asked what months they hunted the least (referred to as ‘low hunting’), hunters identified April to July (Figure 4.1.7).

Furthermore in both villages, hunting effort during the heavy and low hunting activity appears to significantly differ. During heavy hunting, hunters would on average go on more hunting trips (M=3.55, SD=±1.66) and reported catching more animals per week (M=8.98, SD=±12.93) than ‘low hunting’ (M= 2.12 hunting trips, SD= ±1.71; M= 1.82 animals per week, SD=±2.12; t=4.29, df=99.9 p= 4.2e-05; t= 3.90, df=52.7, p= 0.0003). Hunters also reported that they tended to travel on longer distances (M= 4.82 miles SD= ±2.34) during low hunting activity compared to heavy hunting, but the differences are not statistically significant (M= 3.95 miles, SD=±2.98, t= 1.58, df= 97.6, p=0.1183).

80.0% Heavy Kwaman

60.0% Heavy Jachie Low Kwaman Low Jachie 40.0%

20.0%

0.0% Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec

-20.0%

-40.0% Percentage of hunting hunters -60.0%

Months

Figure 4.1.7: The annual patterns in ‘heavy’ and ‘low’ hunting intensity in Kwaman & Jachie. The graph shows the percentage of all hunters that reported heavy hunting and low hunting for each month. (Kwaman-n=28, Jachie-n=23). Answer to question B1 (c&d) from hunter survey: Appendix 5.

The patterns in heavy and low hunting effort, however, further differed between the two hunting strategies. In both villages most Association members tended to hunt heavily during the January to March period (Figure 4.1.8). Low hunting effort was reported predominantly between March to July.

During the focus group discussions the Association members emphasized that they hunted during periods when they were not occupied with farming major cash crops and did not have access to other jobs to keep them busy.

They asserted that hunting was readily reconciled with the agricultural cycle. In addition during the dry season, hunting was an easy means of obtaining cash as the animals were more easily killed in the open vegetation formed by the frequent bushfires. It was not clear whether these bushfires were deliberate or not. During the focus groups the members of the Hunters Association showed themselves to be aware of the restrictions of the Closed season. Frequent reference was made to the importance of not hunting during that period because the animals needed time to reproduce.

100.0% Heavy Kwaman 80.0% Heavy Jachie Low Kwaman 60.0% Low Jachie

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

-20.0%

Percentage of hunting hunters -40.0%

-60.0%

-80.0% Months

Figure 4.1.8: The annual patterns in ‘heavy hunting’ and ‘low hunting’ activity for Association members in Kwaman and Jachie. The graph shows the percentage of Hunter Association members that reported heavy hunting and low hunting for each month (Kwaman- n=26, Jachie- n=16). Answers to question B1 (c&d) in hunter survey: Appendix 5. 33

Discerning the annual pattern for hunters with dogs was less obvious given the small sample size (9 individuals). However from the Jachie sample (n=7) a pattern seems to be emerging, with heavy hunting efforts taking place between June-August (Figure 4.1.9). This period coincides with the wet season and the start of the heavy agricultural period. The hunters with dogs in Jachie explained that hunting with dogs was carried out as a seasonal full time occupation when hunting becomes a relatively more attractive livelihood option. They noted that during the wet season there was a relatively large demand for hunters by maize farmers who were being negatively affected by crop pests. In Kwaman 77% and in Jachie 49% of all households surveyed expressed that wild mammal crop pests such as grasscutters and bushbucks, were a problem and in particular destroying their maize crops. A few households in Jachie explicitly mentioned that they often resorted to seeking help from the hunters with dogs in order reduce crop pests.

While in Kwaman no clear pattern could be observed for hunters with dogs given the small number (only 2) of hunters with dogs identified. However, these two did report that hunting with dogs was not a seasonal occupation but their only livelihood option, since no other livelihood alternatives were available in Kwaman besides farming.

“There are no jobs for the young people except farming, and what do you do if you do not have any land? Hunting with dogs is one of the only viable options as you do not need to be educated or skilled in any way to do well” – (Man aged 21, educated to the secondary school level, Kwaman)

120.0% Heavy Kwaman Heavy Jachie 100.0% Low Kwaman 80.0% Low Jachie

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0% Number of Hunters

-20.0%

-40.0%

-60.0% Months

Figure 4.1.9: The annual patterns in ‘heavy hunting’ and ‘low hunting’ activity for hunters with dogs in Kwaman and Jachie. The graph shows the percentage of hunters with dogs that reported heavy hunting and low hunting for each month (Kwaman- n=2, Jachie- n=7). Answers to question B(1c&d) in hunter survey: Appendix 5.

4.1.8 Hunting as a source of income generation Only a relatively small percentage of hunters, both for Association members and hunters with dogs, depended on bushmeat hunting as their primary source of annual income (5 individuals, 17%-Kwaman; 4 individuals, 17%- Jachie). Older members of the Hunter Association did tend to be more dependent on hunting as their primary income source but not at a statistically significant level (t = 1.14, df = 7.7, p-value = 0.290). In the dominantly farming community of Kwaman, however, older hunters did significantly depend more on hunting (t = 3.05, df = 6.2, p-value = 0.022; Mean= 67, SD=±12.3; Mean= 48.2, SD=±12.7)

For Association members, hunting was usually described as a supplementary source of income to their agricultural activities. As stated above, amongst this group ‘heavy hunting’ was primarily carried out during times of low agricultural activity. However during the focus group discussion a large majority of the Association members did state that up until ten years ago, (i.e. yr 2000) hunting had been their primary source of income.

“It is hunting that provided me with enough money to build my three homes”

-(Hunter, Age 72, Kwaman)

They said that this was no longer the case as hunting was no longer a sufficiently reliable source of income. Making a sufficient profit from hunting has in their view become rare and was very difficult given the decline in the number of animals being caught.

Hunters with dogs also did not rely on hunting as their primary annual source of income. However in Jachie during certain periods of the year, when hunting with dogs was carried out as a full time occupation, it was reported as the main monthly source of income.

On average hunter association members are catching fewer animals per week then hunters with dogs, which in principle provides them with relatively less income (Table 4.1.2). In addition given that rodents and small ungulate species were the animals most often caught by firearm hunters (Figures 4.1.10a and 4.1.10b), a narrower range of income per week is more likely made. Hunters with dogs reported predominantly catching only rodent species, including grasscutters and giant rats, and thus probably also make a narrower range of income per week. Conditions are expected to be poorer during the low hunting months with on average substantially less caught relative to the heavy hunting. However in terms of impact on each individual hunters’ income it should be noted that hunters with dogs reported dividing the gains between the hunting groups of an average size of 3.6 individuals (Range 1-6 individuals). They thus make a relatively smaller range of income per week then hunting alone, but still make on average more then Hunter Association members (heavy hunting: 64- 337 cedis (GHS), low hunting: 36- 224 cedis (GHS)).

Table 4.1.2: Estimate ranges of income derived from hunting for different hunting strategies. Price estimates based on the average price of each species set by the Kwaman Hunter Association (Appendix 2). * The 2nd estimated equivalent value is based on the species hunters report predominantly catching. Average number Standard 1st estimated 2nd estimated of animals deviation equivalent equivalent caught/week value in credis value in credis (GH) (GH)* Hunter Association members Heavy hunting activity 3.9 2.9 20- 800 28- 200 Low hunting activity 1.1 1.0 5- 200 7-50 Hunters with dogs Heavy hunting activity 32.9 15.1 160- 6400 230- 1316 Low hunting activity 20.2 11.7 100- 4000 140- 808

90.0% Association members 80.0% Hunters with dogs 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%

% of hunters surveyed 10.0% 0.0% Grasscutter M. Diker Royal Groud Bushbuck Giant rat antelope squirrel Species Figure 4.1.10a: Species reported being predominantly caught by hunters from both villages during heavy hunting (n=51). Answers to question B12 in hunter survey: Appendix 5.

90.00% Association members 80.00% Hunters with dogs 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% % of hunters surveyed 10.00% 0.00% Other Royal Groud tailed squirrel M. Diker antelope Giant rat Brushed porcupine Cusimanse Grasscutter Species

Figure 4.1.10b: Species reported being predominantly caught by hunters from both villages during low hunting (n=51). ‘Other’ category includes the species giant pangolin and bushbuck. Answers to question B21 in hunter survey: Appendix 5.

Hunting may not provide a primary source of income but it may be an important coping strategy in response to periods of distress. 67% of hunters stated that they were particularly prone to hunting during times of hardship. Hunting during times of hardship was described as a strategy 37

that helps smooth income by providing a means of immediately available cash. Hunters with dogs (but not at a significant level) and younger hunters tended to be more prone to hunting during times of hardship (Hunters with dogs: X-squared = 1.37, df = 1, p-value = 0.243, Younger: F (1, 49) = 8.05, p = 0.007).

4.1.9 Livelihood concerns related to hunting All hunters expressed concerns related specifically to hunting as a means of livelihood. These concerns were predominately related to the perceived negative effects of the decrease in species availability. When asked to rank the most important threats to hunting the impact of bushfires and overhunting were highlighted (Figure 4.1.11).

2.00 Distance travel 1.80 1.60 > Human Pop. 1.40 Use of Chemicals 1.20 Deforestation 1.00 Old Age 0.80 Overhunting

Severity Index 0.60 0.40 Fires 0.20 Loss in 0.00 Biodiversity 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Incidence Index

Figure 4.1.11: Risk Map for hunters (n=50) The severity index from 0 (most severe) and 2 (least severe) while the incidence index ranges from 0 (not mentioned) to 1 (mentioned by all). Answer to question 35 in hunter survey: Appendix 5. All of the hunters interviewed stated that their had been a clear decrease in species availability over the last decade (approximately from the year 2000).

“In those days someone would start the fire for the cooking even before I would set out to go catch a giant rat for dinner” - (Hunter, Age 73, Kwaman).

In addition, 90% of hunters also described a compositional change in species over the same period. In particular the bushbuck, black duiker, bay duiker, tree pangolin, brush tailed porcupine, and the red river hog were mentioned as having become particularly rare.

Many hunters said that the physical cost of hunting all night was becoming increasingly

high. Hunting was described as physically exhausting, making it difficult to work properly on another livelihood the following day. Three hunters reported that they no longer hunted at night because of the low returns, but instead they would now hunt during the day when farming.

62% of hunters stated that they could cope economically without hunting. Many of the Association members stated that if they could not hunt they would focus more on their farms.

“I am first and foremost a farmer” - (Hunter, Age 60, Kwaman).

Despite a majority stating that they could cope without hunting, 51% did express the view that stopping hunting entirely would negatively affect them to ‘a large degree’. 36% stated that they would be ‘slightly affected’. No significant differences in responses was observed between the two villages or between hunting strategy (X-squared = 1.2, df = 1, p-value = 0.265; X-squared = 2.0, df = 1, p-value = 0.157).

4.2 Bushmeat consumption

4.2.1 Overview of the bushmeat commodity chain The commodity chains for Kwaman and Jachie during heavy hunting activity are shown in the following Figures 4.2.1a & 4.2.1b. The commodity chains for both villages during low hunting activity are show in Figures 4.2.1c & 4.2.1d.

Figure 4.2.1a: Trade flow patterns in the rural commodity chain for Kwaman. The arrows illustrate the direction of trade. The arrows are proportional to the volume of bushmeat traded during heavy hunting activity.

Figure 4.2.1b: Trade flow patterns in the rural commodity chain for Kwaman. The arrows illustrate the direction of trade. The arrows are proportional to the volume of bushmeat traded during low hunting activity.

Figure 4.2.1c: Trade flow patterns in the rural commodity chain for Jachie. The arrows illustrate the direction of trade. The arrows are proportional to the volume of bushmeat traded during heavy hunting activity.

Figure 4.2.1d: Trade flow patterns in the rural commodity chain for Jachie. The arrows illustrate the direction of trade. The arrows are proportional to the volume of bushmeat traded during low hunting activity.

In Kwaman the chain is made up of 7 actor types; Association hunters, hunters with dogs, chopbar owners, drinking bar owners, traders, households and chopbar consumers. Around 25% of the bushmeat during heavy hunting activity and 15% during low hunting activity never reaches the rural consumers but leaves the village immediately as hunters sell most of their catch directly to traders or chopbar/drinking bar owners in Kumasi. The main route of the rural commodity chain is short with gun and dog hunters selling directly to chopbar/drinking bar owners who sell the meat to the meat to their customers. Occasionally hunters will sell the bushmeat to local traders, who in most cases further sell on bushmeat by travelling round visiting local households. Only two local

traders were identified in Kwaman, one of which reported selling half her supplies to local consumers and taking the other half to their shop in the urban centre of Kumasi.

The Jachie commodity chain also only consists of same 7 actors but playing different roles. Similarly around 35% of the bushmeat during heavy hunting and 25% of the bushmeat during low hunting is sold directly to urban chopbars or clients in Kumasi. The main route in the rural chain consists of hunters selling bushmeat directly to local chopbars/drinking bars. The commodity chain also includes one trader who sells dried bushmeat to the community, sourced from Kumasi, 12 kilometres away. Lastly since households have easy access to Kumasi they tend to also get their bushmeat supplies directly from Kumasi’s Atwemonom market. The following sections of the results will provide a more detailed analysis of the commodity chain by focusing on the lower sections of the chain.

4.2.2 Consumption Overview Fish and meat are important components of household diets in both villages. The food category that is most frequently consumed is fish (including dried, smoked or fresh fish) – reported as eaten daily in 99% and 90% of households in Kwaman and Jachie respectively (Figures 4.2.2a & 4.2.2b). Meat is less frequently consumed. The majority of households reported ‘rarely’ eating domestic meat (40%-Kwaman, 41%-Jachie). However, a significant proportion of households did report eating domestic meat ‘daily’ (24%- Kwaman; 18%- Jachie).

Most households surveyed (87%-Kwman, 79%- Jachie) in both villages reported currently eating bushmeat, albeit infrequently. Of the households who ate bushmeat, the majority in both villages states that they only ate bushmeat ‘rarely’. Only 20% and 27% in each village respectively ate bushmeat occasionally on a ‘monthly’ or ‘weekly’ basis. Of note, 7% and 18 % of households in Kwaman and Jachie reported that they had previously but no longer ate bushmeat at all. A small proportion of households reported having ‘never’ eaten domestic meat or bushmeat because of religious beliefs or health reasons.

Of the bushmeat species consumed, rodent species, especially grasscutters, were mentioned as being the most widely available and frequently consumed (64%- Kwaman, 53%- Jachie) of all households in both villages). Only two households mentioned larger ungulate species, such as Maxwell's duikers and royal antelopes, as the species most often consumed (Figures 4.2.5a & 4.2.5b).

There is no significant difference in consumption frequency of bushmeat, domestic meat or different bushmeat species between the two villages (bushmeat: X-squared = 8.3, df = 5, p-value = 42

0.143; domestic meat: X-squared = 7.5, df = 5, p-value = 0.184; Bushmeat species: X-squared = 10.5, df = 6, p-value = 0.104). However a statistical difference was found for the consumption frequency of fish between villages (X-squared = 4.9, df = 1, p-value = 0.03).

100.0% 90.0% Fish 80.0% Domestic Meat 70.0% Bushmeat 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% % of surveyed households 10.0% 0.0% Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Very rarely Previously Never but no more Consumption Frequency Figure 4.2.2a: Consumption frequency of different protein food categories in Kwaman (n=87). Data collected from Section F in the household survey Appendix 4.

100.0% 90.0% Fish 80.0% Domestic Meat 70.0% Bushmeat 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0%

% of surveyed households 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Very rarely Previously Never but no more Consumption Frequency Figure 4.2.2b: Consumption frequency of protein food type in Jachie (n=90) Data collected from Section F in the household survey Appendix 4.

4.2.3 Bushmeat consumption pattern When households were asked at what time of year they tended to eat bushmeat or the most bushmeat, most were unable to provide exact details. A slight majority of all households reported 43

having eaten bushmeat in the 6 month prior to the interviews (61%- Kwaman and 48%-Jachie). Nearly all had eaten it in the last five years (89%-Kwaman, 81%-Jachie). The pattern of bushmeat consumption was similar in both villages with no significant difference concerning the last time they reported eating bushmeat (X-squared = 8.75, df = 7, p-value = 0.271).

4.2.4 Relationship between preference and consumption When households were asked what food type they preferred among a range of protein sources such as bushmeat, pork and fish, fish again was the most commonly named by respondent as the first choice (44.8%- Kwaman; 31.1%-Jachie; Figure 4.2.3). However 27.6% and 26.6% of households in each village did cite bushmeat as their preferred food type. In addition when households were asked whether bushmeat was a significant element of their preferred diet, a large proportion of households asserted that it was (57.5%- Kwaman, 36.7%-Jachie). A significant different in preferred food types was observed between both villages (X-squared = 22.8, df = 5, p- value = 0.0004). Households in Jachie were more likely to report a preference and had a stronger preference for domestic meats.

50.0% 45.0% Kwaman 40.0% Jachie 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% % of surveyed households 5.0% 0.0% Fish Chicken Beef Goat Bushmeat No Preference Commodity Figure 4.2.3: Preferences of bushmeat, domestic meats and fish by households. (Kwaman n=87, Jachie n=90) Data collected from Section F in the household survey Appendix 4.

Consumption and preference of protein food categories were found to have a positive relationship in both villages. The highly preferred food type, fish, was overwhelmingly more frequently consumed, almost on a daily basis. This suggests that neither communities face constraints on fish availability. However for bushmeat, the second most preferred food type, it was

not at all mentioned as being regularly consumed. This would further suggest that there are constraints to bushmeat consumption (Figures 4.2.4a & 4.2.4b).

100 Consumption Preference 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 % of surveyed households 10 0 Fish Bushmeat Chicken Beef Goat No answer

Commodity

Figure 4.2.4a: Frequency of consumption and preference scores of different food types for households in Kwaman (n=87). The choice for consumption and preference was summed across households to give a total score for each food type. Data collected from Section F in the household survey Appendix 4.

100 Consumption 90 Preference 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

% of surveyed households 10 0 Fish Bushmeat Chicken Beef Goat Pork . Commodity Figure 4.2.4b: Frequency of consumption and preference scores of different food types for households in Jachie (n=90) The choice for consumption and preference was summed across households to give a total score for each food type. Data collected from Section F in the household survey Appendix 4.

Despite bushmeat being rarely consumed consumption and preference across bushmeat species was also found to have a positive relationship. In Kwaman the overwhelmingly preferred grasscutter species were the most frequently consumed (Figures 4.2.5a & 4.2.5b). While in Jachie

grasscutters are highly preferred but are less frequently consumed then giant rats. This might imply that in Jachie access to grasscutters is relatively more limited then Kwaman. Other species such as the Maxwell's diukers and royal antelopes were also valued but infrequently consumed. This may imply that household access to ungulate species is particularly limited.

50 Consumption 45 40 Preference 35 30 25 20 15 10

% of surveyed households 5 0 Grasscutter Giant rat Royal M. Diker Ground No Answer antelope squirrell Bushmeat Species

Figure 4.2.5a: Frequency of consumption and preference scores for different bushmeat species in Kwaman (n=87). The choice for consumption and preference was summed across households to give a total score for each species. Data collected from Section F in the household survey Appendix 4.

45 Consumption 40 Preference 35 30 25 20 15 10

% of surveyed households 5 0 Grasscutter Giant rat Royal M Duiker Ground Cusimanse Other No answer antelope squirrel Bushmeat Species

Figure 4.2.5b: Frequency of consumption and preference scores for different bushmeat species in Jachie. (n=90). The choice for consumption and preference was summed across households to give a total score for each species. The ‘Other’ category includes 1 score for each of the following: Consumption: civet cat, red river hog, & monkey; Preferred; tree pangolin & brushed tailed porcupine. Data collected from Section F in the household survey Appendix 4. 46

4.2.5 The role of price A possible reason for the discrepancy between bushmeat consumption and preference relates to the price of bushmeat. The price was cited as ‘having increased’ over the last 10 years by the majority of the households (97% of all households). Households and chopbar holders often attributed the rise in price to hunters raising the price due to the price of bullets also rising and hunting becoming more difficult. Each year the Kwaman Hunter Association set the price for each species (Appendix 2). The Hunter Association in Jachie no longer sets prices, as it has been inactive since 2009. Other hunters will be selling their bushmeat on the open market. They reported being more prone to bargaining and selling their catch at a lower price then set by the Hunter Association.

59% and 27% households in Kwaman and Jachie stated that they would continue to buy bushmeat if the price continued to rise. This suggests that the bushmeat demand curve is to some degree inelastic and that the high price of bushmeat cannot be solely responsible for its infrequent consumption.

4.2.6 The role of Availability The availability of bushmeat sold in the villages is arguably a limiting factor on consumption. One quarter to one third of the bushmeat leaves the villages for consumption elsewhere and is no longer available to the rural consumers.

In order to procure bushmeat in Kwaman, in most cases households reported they had to purchase the bushmeat directly from a hunter or a trader (36%-Hunters, 26%-Traders; Figure 4.2.6). No bushmeat is sold at the village daily market. However, very few hunters (less then 5) reported selling bushmeat directly to households or traders during either heavy hunting or low hunting (Figures 4.2.7a & 4.2.7b). In addition the traders complained that they were struggling because they rarely obtained bushmeat to sell anymore as hunters were selling the bulk of their kill directly to chopbars or in Kumasi. It thus appears that through the hunters and traders, households only have access to very small number of hunters and ultimately a small proportion of the available bushmeat. Many households observed that they had to hunt on their own land or to know a hunter in order to get some bushmeat, otherwise it was very difficult to procure.

In Jachie, on the other hand, many households cited that they did not buy bushmeat (34%). Another 23% stated that they do buy bushmeat but that they buy it in Kumasi. Only a relatively small proportion was bought directly from hunters (13%). Despite this smoked bushmeat was sold in the local market by one female trader. However given that the meat was smoked and that she

obtained her bushmeat from Kumasi the price tended to be higher then the fresh bushmeat sold by hunters. Of the households surveyed, only 9% of households cited her as their main source of bushmeat. Households complained that hunters rarely sold bushmeat directly to households because it was more profitable to sell it directly to Chopbars or Kumasi. Only 1 hunter reported selling bushmeat to households. Chopbars also rarely sold meat directly to households because it was more profitable for them to sell it in a prepared dish.

40.0% Kwaman 35.0% Jachie 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% % of surveyed households 0.0% Hunters Traders Own Kumasi Chopbar Market Other Don't buy traps Villages Bushmeat Supplier

Figure 4.2.6: Where households from both villages obtain their bushmeat. (n=87 Kwaman, n=90 Jachie). Data collected from Section F in the household survey Appendix 4.

Hunters further confirmed the statements; During heavy hunting activity the majority of hunters in Kwaman and Jachie ranked Kumasi and Chopbars as being their preferred choices to sell their bushmeat (Figures 4.2.7a & 4.2.7b). Hunter’s explained that they obtained a better price and it was easier to sell their bushmeat as whole carcasses and occasionally in bulk to local chopbars or clients in Kumasi. However during low hunting activity a much smaller proportion of meat was being sold to Kumasi (low: 14%-Kwaman, 26%-Jachie , Heavy: 25%-Kwman, 35%- Jachie).

In addition, hunters, particularly in Jachie, considered that not much bushmeat was reaching households because a large proportion of hunters consumed their game at home. A large proportion of hunters reported primarily consuming their game at home during both the heavy and low hunting activities (heavy: 18%-Kwaman, 30%-Jachie; low: 32%-Kwaman, 33%-Jachie). Hunters explained that since they enjoyed consuming bushmeat and that they caught few animals, they preferred to eat the bushmeat at home rather than sell it on the market.

45.0% Kwaman 40.0% Jachie 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% % of surveyed hunters 5.0% 0.0% Kumasi Local chopbars Own Local traders Households consumption Where hunters sold their bushmeat

Figure 4.2.7a: Where hunters sell their bushmeat during the heavy hunting. (Kwaman n=28, Jachie n=23). Data collected from question 16 in the hunter survey Appendix 5.

45.0% Kwaman 40.0% Jachie 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% % of surveyed hunters 5.0% 0.0% Kumasi Local chopbars Own Local traders Households consumption Where hunters sold their bushmeat

Figure 4.2.7b: Where hunters sell their bushmeat during the low hunting. (Kwaman n=28, Jachie n=23). Data collected from question 16 in the hunter survey Appendix 5.

The lower availability of bushmeat is most likely a recent trend. In both villages 100% of households and chopbar owners confirmed that in the past ten years there had been a marked decline in bushmeat availability. Furthermore in Jachie 70% of households stated that over the last 10 years they ‘personally had been affected’ by a reduction in the availability of bushmeat. Many households indicated that they have had to modify their diet and have had no longer access to eating their favourite food type because of the price rise and reduced availability.

“It makes me sad when I think that my children do not have the chance to eat bushmeat like I used to” – (Mother of 4, Age 32, Jachie) 49

The reduction in bushmeat may have affected people’s diets however it does not appear to pose a direct food security concern. A large majority of households in Kwaman and Jachie stated that they could cope without ever eating bushmeat ever again (96.6%-Kwaman, 90%-Jachie).

4.2.7 Bushmeat consumption at chopbars & drinking bars Despite chopbars rarely providing bushmeat directly to households, they did regularly serve prepared dishes with bushmeat.

In Kwaman there were 5 traditional chopbars of which 4 served bushmeat. The other did not serve bushmeat due to the religious beliefs of the owner. An additional 3 drinking bars also were found to serve bushmeat. While in Jachie 4 traditional chopbars and 2 drinking bars were found to serve bushmeat. Bushmeat was described as an important component of their business providing considerable profits and helping attract customers.

“Consumers first inquire on whether bushmeat is available and if there is none they leave”- (Female, Age 35, Jachie)

During months when bushmeat was available it provided the primary income source for 84.6% for both the chopbars and drinking bars in both villages. This again suggests that there is a high rural demand for eating bushmeat.

However chopbars during the low periods of bushmeat availability 69.2% of the owners expressed that they served the greatest quantities and obtained most of the monthly income from goat. Goat was described as the most suitable substitute for bushmeat, preferred by costumers probably because it provided a similar strong taste. A large majority (84.6%) claimed that if there was no longer any bushmeat available they could cope. Many claimed they would have to depend on selling more goat.

4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Hunting as a means of pest management The significant damage that rodents can cause to a range of agricultural crops has been extensively described in the literature (e.g. Mulungu et al. 2003; Mwanjabe et al. 2002). However only a few studies have addressed how bushmeat hunting might be linked to crop protection (e.g. Davies 1990, Fitzgibbon et al. 1995, Caspary 1999). In Ghana one of the only relevant references concern market surveys, which have noted that many of the bushmeat species presently sold in the urban markets are likely to cause damage to agricultural farms (Cowlishaw et al. 2005b). While a study by Schulte-Herbruggen (PhD thesis, 2011) conducted in the southwest of Ghana, Wansampo, found that the main incentive for setting traps was for trapping food and not for mitigating crop damage. Most studies have focused on the role of bushmeat as a direct source of income or animal protein (de Merode et al. 2004; Starkey 2004). In some circumstances this may only be part of the picture, as trap hunting might also make wider contributions to household income by boosting crop production and thus indirectly increasing household income.

My research illustrates that traps represent the most widely used hunting strategy in both study villages, being used by a large number of households. In the more rural setting of Kwaman 39% of the households surveyed reported using traps. These households claimed that traps are used to reduce damage to crops by wildlife. Household members expressed how species such as grasscutters and giant rats could cause devastating damage to their food crops, especially during the maize-planting season.

“If you just watch and let them be, they will destroy 1 acre in less then a week”

-(Farmer, Age 43, Kwaman)

The use of traps on farmland has important implications for the livelihoods of these farming households. Households who reported being negatively affected by crop pests tended to be more likely to engage in hunting. Trap hunting thus appears to be playing a much larger role for the rural economy then previously thought, primarily as a risk mitigation strategy. Trapping appears to be contributing to both income and crop security. It also was reported to directly contribute to food intake, as most of the bushmeat was reportedly eaten by the household members and not sold. Exposure to the risks of crop damage may undermine a person’s capability to maintain the quantity and quality of the benefits derived from their livelihood (Ros Tonen 2005).

This raises some concerns, given that the use of traps is illegal as stated in the Wildlife Conservation Regulation of 1971 (LI 685). If this regulation were actually enforced, the vulnerability of farmers to crop losses would increase and negatively impact their livelihoods. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of farm trapping and its wider livelihood implications.

4.2 Hunting interlinked with other livelihood activities Although it is well recognized that bushmeat hunting can make an important contribution to rural livelihoods through income generation and dietary enhancement (Brown 2003), little attention has been paid to assessing how hunting interacts with other livelihood activities within the household economy (but see de Merode et al. 2004; Damania et al. 2005; Brashares et al. 2011). The poor are often dependent on a wide range of different livelihood activities, none of which tend to be very productive (Brown 2003). Such a strategy helps households spread risks and increase their ability to cope with any fluctuation in the local urban or rural market economy (Yanggen et al. 2010). It can also provide opportunities to take advantage of unexploited local resources.

Among the hunting individuals interviewed, the study highlights the continuing importance of combining bushmeat exploitation with other livelihood strategies. Hunting was always found to take place in conjunction with another primary activity. The study also highlights how these combinations remain in a constant state of change. Hunters are engaging in different, often interrelated livelihood activities at different times of the year. Wider economic and environmental factors seem to be driving these dynamic relationships. More specifically environmental seasonality interrelated with variations in agricultural activities seems to provide one of the primary explanations for the temporal variation in hunting activity.

For the Hunting Association members hunting peaks during the dry season (January to March) when animals are easily spotted in the relatively more open vegetation and farmers are less occupied in their farms. During this time of year respondents also described hunting as playing an important role in helping to increase household income and contributing towards the cost of agricultural inputs. This underlines the reliance of these hunters on hunting income during times of low agricultural activity. Hunting thereby serves a ‘safety net’ function. Similarly in Democratic Republic of Congo, de Merode et al. (2004) suggests that hunting increases during the ‘lean season’ helping hunters enhance their livelihood strategies during that time of year by allowing them, for example, to purchase key commodities.

On the other hand, for hunters with dogs in Jachie, hunting activity peaks during the agricultural lean season (May-July) when some farmers seek help from dog hunter as their farms become susceptible to crop damage from pests. The seasonality of hunting for hunters with dogs also depends on the availability and the relative profitability of other income generating jobs.

These two peaks in hunting activity correspond with the observed peaks in the supply of bushmeat trade to Kumasi’s Atwemonom market from data collected by the Ghanaian Wildlife Division (Falconer 1992). The study was able to gain an appreciation of what was motivating hunting behaviour based on quantitative data. However it is difficult to statistically disentangle and identify more precisely to what extent individual factors such as agricultural activity or the poorly regulated closed season are affecting hunting decisions. These issues should be addressed in future research.

4.3 Hunters with dogs: responding to market signals The distance to the main urban centre Kumasi was expected to be a significant variable affecting hunter behaviour. It has been suggested that villages with better access to urban areas and exposure to markets have greater livelihood options in acquiring goods and income, that could potentially reduce dependence on hunting by allowing diversification away from hunting to other options (Crookes et al. 2007). Creating more employment opportunities for rural labour is thought to decrease its dependence on forest resources in two ways. Firstly it increases the opportunity cost of forest resource extraction, hence reducing forest extraction activities. Secondly off farm employment is also expected to increase the wealth of households and thus reduce the need for household hunting (Illukpitiya et al. 2010). Other factors may also be at play, including higher bushmeat prices, which would make hunting a more attractive livelihood option (Damania et al. 2005).

Our results do illustrate that Jachie, located closer to Kumasi compared to Kwaman, does indeed present a wider range of off-farm livelihood options. Nonetheless even with greater access and more livelihood options in Jachie, households are still hunting. Association members continue to combine hunting with farming and hunters with dogs easily combined hunting with other crafts and trades such as shoemaking.

The incentives for dog hunters to move away from hunting and adopt or maintain other non-agriculture livelihood options must not yet be sufficient. This is likely related to dog hunting’s relatively low requirements in terms of investment and the still high potential hunting rewards. In addition alternative livelihood options may have their own degree of unpredictability

and represent more short-term options that do not necessarily help achieve greater income security.

This suggests that in the case of the dog hunters in Jachie, where other economic options are available, hunting does not necessarily appear to be providing an essential livelihood survival strategy. Rather, hunters are responding to economic signals (such as prices) and the changing profitability of different hunting and non-hunting activities. Given the high price of bushmeat it is probable that hunting will continue to remain an attractive livelihood option, until the high relative payoffs fall.

To gain a better understanding more research is needed to investigate the nature of these other livelihood options and investigate the relative contribution of hunting to a hunter’s household wealth both at different times of the year and for different wealth groups. The majority of hunters claimed that hunting was not their primary income source, yet hunting still has the potential to make a significant contribution to the household economy. This may be especially true at certain times of the year when other livelihood options become less available. If hunting is in fact their only option and represents a major contribution to their household economy at those times of year, a reduction in bushmeat hunting, through regulation or a decrease in animal abundance, will still negatively impact their livelihoods (de Merode et al. 2003; Starkey 2004).

4.4 Firearm Hunters: A shift in livelihood from hunting to agriculture? These dynamic strategies do not only fluctuate within a given year but appear to be evolving over time. In the past 10 years the importance of hunting as a livelihood activity in people’s portfolio was reported to have rapidly declined. The main reason given was the decline in animal availability. The Hunter Association members claimed that in the past they had almost solely been reliant on hunting as an income source.

“It was hunting that had provided me with enough income to build all of my three family homes”- (Head of Hunter Association, Age 73, Kwaman)

Previous studies such as Crookes et al (2007) have also reported bushmeat hunting comprising a large proportion of the total village income, derived from eight sampled villages in the Ashanti region (35%). However now, although hunting still remains of central importance to a small number of households, it is increasingly unable to provide sufficient income on its own. The positive livelihood implications of bushmeat hunting were reported to be continuously wearing away as individuals find it increasingly physically demanding and difficult to catch game. Association member hunters have therefore found it an economic necessity to combine hunting 54

with other income generation schemes. The local identities of hunters seem to have been transformed as hunters shift away from being almost entirely based on bushmeat as a natural resource, to livelihoods based on a range of assets and income sources. This has transformed the character of many Association members who now characterize themselves as primarily farmers. In both study sites no individuals responded claiming that their livelihood was solely based on hunting.

Certain individuals, however, especially the elderly, showed to be less prone to shifting away from hunting. Older hunters tended to still remain highly dependent on hunting as their primary income source despite the low returns. Research related to poverty has demonstrated that in developing countries many factors associated with household vulnerability are connected with age (Lloyd-Sherlock 2000; Heslop and Gorman 2002). The elderly demonstrate a reduced capacity for maintaining their income and an increased vulnerability to risks such as loss of physical strength and illness (Lloyd-Sherlock 2000). This is especially the case where kinship networks do not provide economic support or where there are no formal pension schemes for the old. Older people also appear to be more likely to be involved in informal, part-time employment (Heslop and Gorman 2002). This suggests that the livelihoods of older hunters are more vulnerable to being undermined by both the diminishing capacity of their labour and a reduction in animal populations. More research would be needed to determine whether this is a society-wide phenomenon in Ghana’s rural villages. If it is, policies would need to give higher priority to addressing the needs of the elderly who are less likely to find alternative sources of income when their livelihoods become undermined.

4.5 A decline in household consumption of bushmeat The role of bushmeat may not only to be changing for individual hunters but also for rural consumers especially in terms of consumption frequency. Our results indicate that bushmeat is not a major component of the household diet in either rural village. Households reported ‘rarely’ eating bushmeat in their own households, with the majority of interviewed households not having eaten bushmeat within the last 6 months. This is considerably less than previous research from 1990 conducted in the Ashanti region. Household members in a number of rural communities reported that they had eaten bushmeat within a week of the interview (Falconer 1992). These observations, along with a reported reduction in bushmeat availability among hunters, consumers, drinking bar and chopbar owners suggest that bushmeat consumption has fallen in the villages. The results also suggest that the latent demand for bushmeat is not being met, with households unable to satisfy their preference. 55

There are probably three possible explanations for the observed low rural consumption of bushmeat. Firstly a reduction in wildlife availability has probably reduced supply. Hunters all reported a reduction in wildlife numbers over the last 10 years. Secondly rural households may not have access to bushmeat because it is sold directly to urban consumers or chopbars. This occurred especially during the heavy hunting periods and for larger ungulate species such as bushbucks that were reported to be almost exclusively sold to urban centres. This may not be surprising given that it is widely recognized that Ghana’s bushmeat trade is highly commercialized (Davies and Brown 2007). Research dating back to the 1980s in Ghana’s Ashanti region observed that the demand for bushmeat in urban areas was very strong and was thus limiting rural consumption patterns of bushmeat (Asibey 1987; Crookes et al. 2007). This is thus probably an ongoing constraint to rural consumption and is likely to increase in the future as villages become increasingly urbanized and gain better access to urban centers.

Thirdly, driven by the rise in the price of bushmeat, is that households may not have the necessary income or opportunities to purchase bushmeat directly. There is some evidence for this in both villages in that a relatively large proportion of hunters reported selling their game to local chopbars and rarely directly to households. Households also reported that they could not afford to buy whole animals but could only buy bushmeat if it was cut into small affordable pieces. If household members wish to consume bushmeat they must usually go to the local chopbars. However to confirm this hypothesis a more comprehensive analysis of the rural elasticity of bushmeat consumption to prices and income is needed. Wilkie and Godoy (2001), among the few researchers who have carried out such an analysis, suggests that in rural areas of South America bushmeat consumption is sensitive to changes in both income and price. They observed that an increase in income and a drop in price caused consumption of bushmeat to increase.

Overall the observed low frequency of bushmeat consumption in the study communities seems be a result of a combination of these factors. A household’s access to bushmeat seems to reflect the complex social networks and depend upon households own hunting activities or a relationship with a hunter.

4.7 Implications for current and future policy action in Ghana Market data from Ghana has provided evidence that bushmeat continues to be traded during the Closed season (Ntiamoa-Naidu 1998; Crookes et al. 2006). The study provides further evidence of the limited success of the Closed season regulation. Although many member of the Hunters’ Association were aware of the timing and importance of the Closed

season, all hunters reported that they continue to hunt during that period. The results do suggest marked reductions in hunting activity during the closed season but it is difficult to attribute this reduction solely towards regulation compliance as hunting behaviour was also found to relate to other factors such as the agricultural cycle. Our findings however do support the need for greater efforts to enforce the Closed season regulation and community education concerning its importance to conservation and their livelihoods, though the effectiveness of these measures remain to be validated.

Given the differences between hunting strategies between Association members and hunters with dogs it is important for policy-making to consider the full spectrum of hunting behaviours. Similarly Solly (2004) highlighted the importance of the necessity of understanding the motives and influences of the different types of hunters in order to develop appropriate conservation and development policy. The results from this study suggest that hunter with firearms hunting are hunting in the surrounding fallow and forest habitat and putting more pressure on larger bodied species, thus posing a greater threat to mammal biodiversity. More attention and resources need to be focused on the Association members in an effort to shift hunting towards smaller and less endangered species. There might not be such an urgent need to focus conservation efforts on other hunting strategies such as hunting with dogs and hunting related to crop protection. At the moment these strategies appear more sustainable, concentrating their efforts on pest management and targeting the less endangered fast breeding rodent species (Cowlishaw et al. 2005b). Nevertheless an in depth assessment of the sustainability of these strategies and their impact on wildlife is needed and longer-term strategies may need to include hunters with dogs and people who use traps on their farms.

However the Association members were found to be more vulnerable to the depletion in wildlife with many of their livelihoods remaining highly dependant on hunting. Moreover it is known that enforcing strict regulations might lead to resentment towards other broader conservation initiatives. For example in Cameroon near the Dja Reserve, local hunters quickly became resentful towards the conservation efforts because they had few alternatives for food and dealing with the crop pests (Solly 2004).

Creating more positive incentives, for example in the form of direct payments in return for conservation behaviour, may turn out to be more effective (Brown 2003). Moreover designing management strategies that consider bushmeat hunting in the context of other social and economic activities might prove to be particularly effective. For example this study suggests that some vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, continue to resort to hunting in the absence of support for 57

meeting their basic needs. Implementing adequate social protection measures for the poor and the elderly may thus contribute to conservation by helping socially vulnerable hunters not continue to depend so heavily on hunting. The Hunters Associations could provide a good entry point for providing institutional support seeking to minimize the impact of hunting on wildlife and develop strategies for sustainability.

Our results also indicate that in order for policies to be successful in tackling firearm hunting, they need to address the issues controlling both hunting and farming decisions. In the two study sites the large majority of hunters with firearms are also farmers. Empirical evidence suggests that COMACO, an initiative in Zambia, has proven successful in linking wider livelihood strategies related to agricultural policy when tackling bushmeat issues (Lewis et al. 2011). COMACO attempts to improve farming practices and promote agricultural markets in exchange for conservation commitments (Davies and Brown 2007). Such an initiative may prove effective in the study sites as firearm hunters maybe less prone to hunting if they did achieve greater income security from their farming efforts. Yet additional measures may be required for older hunters. Commitments would need to be monitored and ensured for such policies to be successful.

However agricultural development may have complex side effects such as increasing household demand of bushmeat through an increase in household income. Damania et al. (2005) further illustrates how a rise in agricultural prices might actually result in a rise in the amount of gun hunting carried out and ultimately a decline in wildlife populations. Such outcomes and tradeoffs should be explicitly taken into account when linking development and conservation policies and acted upon by putting into place the necessary safeguards. For example promoting economic incentives and agricultural support could be complemented by a more regulatory approach to limiting firearm hunting. In this way policies can work towards balancing and finding higher levels of synergy between development and conservation goals.

4.8 Implications for future research The study was constrained by limited time and resources, leaving many potential issues of value unaddressed. The study’s limitations include an incomplete assessment of complex or mixed livelihood strategies, lack of time series data to better understand trends, small sample size, and lack of comprehensive wealth data. Further research is required to address some key leads and critical gaps in knowledge.

There are many implications for research to be conducted in Ghana. In terms of the supply side, as previously mentioned, there are many unanswered questions related to the role of hunting

for pest management. In addition a few hunting techniques such as the use of chemicals and fire to kill pests such as grasscutters were not explicitly explored in the study. The use of these techniques was mentioned frequently during household interviews and hunters expressed concern about them given their potentially devastating effects on both people and wildlife. A market study by Conservation International- Ghana found that one-third of wildlife sold in Ghana’s markets were contaminated with toxic chemicals, similar to the ones used when hunting (Conservation International 2003). However no studies have attempted to assess the use and impact of such strategies on wildlife populations and consumers.

In terms of characterizing rural consumption in Ghana more appropriately, a more detailed consumer analysis is needed. This requires complementing the household consumption data with data from chopbar and drinking bar consumers. Chopbars and drinking bars were an important source of demand for bushmeat, regularly serving prepared dishes with bushmeat to individuals. This is a significant issue in understanding rural consumption. East et al. (2005) triangulated their consumption data, by surveying a combination of households, market producers and restaurant consumers, when assessing urban consumption in Equatorial Guinea. In this way the study was able to capture a more detailed understanding of the factors driving bushmeat demand, details not observed during the household surveys (East et al. 2005).

There are also implications for research on bushmeat issues beyond the Ghana context. Firstly the study exemplifies how there is a need to improve our understanding on bushmeat and livelihood linkages. This study confirms that for certain hunters, engaging in hunting is highly dependent upon the opportunity cost of allocating time towards agricultural activities. However there is still a need for more empirical research to carry out context-specific analyses and focus on whether agricultural transformation would in fact help achieve more income security and reduce wildlife dependency. So far quantitative analysis suggests the relationship is ambiguous, with changes in agricultural practices having unpredictable consequences on hunting behaviour (Damania et al. 2005). Research also now needs to focus on examining in more detail the dynamic nature of other livelihood activities aside from farming that are associated with hunting, especially concerning hunters with dogs. Such analyses would help build towards finding ways to intervene through the building of links between rural development and bushmeat hunting.

Finally research should be directed towards understanding how larger economic and environmental driving forces influence hunting supply and demand including demographic changes, urbanization, and changing pattern of poverty. For example in Jachie, hunters were found to be relatively less commercially orientated then in Kwaman. This is rather surprising given that 59

Crookes et al. (2007) and Brashares et al. (2011) suggest the contrary, with hunters located closer to urban areas expected to be more commercially orientated. The observed difference may reflect a disparity in affluence between the hunters of both villages, driven by urbanization, with hunters in Jachie being better off and less dependant on sales. In order to gain a true understanding of how development processes, including processes such as urbanization and education, affect bushmeat off-take, future research should take a broader approach. Similarly to Brashares et al. (2011) studies should analyze data across a wide geographical range, varying in factors such as levels of wealth, urbanisation and access to hunting wildlife.

4.9 Concluding remarks This study shows that bushmeat plays a significant role in the livelihoods of the two rural communities; as a means to mitigate pests, as a seasonal source of income, and as an income safety net. The different hunting strategies were found to be deeply embedded within a mosaic of dynamic livelihood strategies practiced within the rural community. Furthermore the study underlines how bushmeat hunting and consumption behaviours are dynamic, in the context of changing local economies characterized by reductions of wildlife numbers, rising incomes and increasing urbanization.

Conservation strategies need to consider bushmeat hunting in the context of other social and economic activities. Support for improving farming practices and promoting agricultural markets in exchange for conservation actions, in collaboration with community-based groups such as the Hunters Associations, could help minimize the impacts of hunting on local wildlife. However such measures would need to ensure that vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, who are the most dependent on the income related to hunting, receive adequate social protection measures. In this way more consistent linkages, based on evidence, can be built between conservation and development policy actions.

REFERENCES

Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B., & Wolmer, W. (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science, 306, 1146-1149.

Ambrose-Oji, B. (2003) The contribution of NTFPs to the livelihoods of the 'forest poor': evidence from the tropical forest zone of south-west Cameroon, International Forestry Review 5 (2), 106-118.

Ashong, K., Smith, D.R. (2001) Livelihoods of the poor in Ghana: a contextual review of Ghana- wide definitions and trends of poverty and the poor with those of peri-urban Kumasi. Kumasi and London, Centre for Development of People and University of Greenwich, Natural Resources Institute. .

Asibey, E. O. A. (1987) A paper presented at the Ghana livestock show 1987 at Trade Fair Site, La, Accra, Ghana, 4.

Bakarr, M.I., Fonseca, G.A.B.D., Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B., Painemilla, K.W. (2001) Hunting and Bushmeat Utilisation in the African Rainforest: Perspectives Towards a Blueprint for Conservation Action. Conservation International, Washington, DC.

Barnes, R.F.W., (2002) The bushmeat boom and bust in West and Central Africa. Oryx 36:236– 242

Behrman, J.R., Kohler, H.-P. and Watkins, S.C. (2003). Social networks, HIV/AIDS and risk perceptions. Penn Institute for Economic Research Working Paper 03-007. University of Pennsylvania.

Bennett, E., Eves, H., Robinson, J.G. & Wilkie, D. (2002) Why is eating bushmeat a biodiversity crisis? Conservation in Practice, 3, 28–29.

Bowen-Jones, E. (1998) A review of the commercial bushmeat trade with emphasis on Central/West Africa and the great apes. African Primates 3 (Suppl.), S1–S43.

Bowen-Jones, E., Brown, D., Robinson, E., (2002) Assessment of the solution orientated research needed to promote a more sustainable bushmeat trade in Central and West Africa. DEFRA, London.

Bowen-Jones E., Brown D. & Robinson, E. (2003) “Economic commodity or environmental crisis? An interdisciplinary approach to analysing the bushmeat trade in central and west Africa”, Area 35 (4): 390–402.

Bowen-Jones, E. & Pendry, S. (1999), The threat to primates and other mammals from the bushmeat trade in Africa, and how this threat could be diminished. Oryx, 33: 233–246.

Brashares, J. S., Arcese, P. & Sam, M. K. (2001) Human demography and reserve size predict wildlife extinction in West Africa. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 2473–2478.

Brashares, J.S., Golden C.D., Weinbaum, K.Z., Barrett, C.B., Okello, G.V. (2011) Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:13931–13936.

Brashares, J.S., Arcese, P.; Sam, M.K.; Coppolillo, P.B.; Sinclair, A.R.E. & Balmford, A. (2004) “Bushmeat hunting, wildlife declines, and fish supply in West Africa”, Science 306: 1180– 1183.

Brown, D. (2003) Bushmeat and poverty alleviation: implications for development policy. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, 2.

Brown, D. & Williams, A. (2003) The case for bushmeat as a component of development policy: issues and challenges. International Forestry Review, 5, 148-155.

Caspary, H-U. (1999) Wildlife Utilization in Cote d’Ivoire and West Africa- Potentials and Constraints for Development Cooperation, Eschborn, Germany: Tropical ecology support program.

Chardonnet, P., Fritz, H., Zorzi, N. and Feron, E. (1995) Current importance of traditional hunting and major contrasts in wild meat consumption in subsaharan Africa. In Integrating people and wildlife for a sustainable future (J.A. Bissonette and Krausman, P.R., eds.) 304-307. Bethesda, Maryland: The Wildlife Society.

Conservation International, (2003) Battling a Lethal Trade: CI-Ghana Takes Aim at Bushmeat. Available at: http://www.conservation.org/FMG/Articles/Pages/battling_lethal_trade_bushmeat.aspx (Accessed: August 23, 2011)

Cowlishaw, G., Mendelson, S. & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2004) The bushmeat commodity chain: patterns of trade and sustainability in a mature urban market in West Africa. Overseas Development Institute Wildlife Policy Briefing series, 7.

Cowlishaw, G., Mendelson, S. & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2005a) Structure and operation of a bushmeat commodity chain in Southwestern Ghana. Conservation Biology 19: 139-149.

Cowlishaw, G., Mendelson, S., & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2005b) Evidence for post-depletion sustainability in a mature bushmeat market. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 460–68.

Crookes, D.J., Ankudey, N. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2006) The usefulness of a long-term bushmeat market dataset as an indicator of system dynamics. Environmental Conservation, 32, 333–339.

Crookes, D.J., Humphreys, D., Masroh, F., Tarchie, B., Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2007) The role of livelihoods in village hunting in the Ashanti region, Ghana. South African Journal of Economic & Management Sciences 10, 457-469.

Damania, R., Milner-Gulland, E.J. and Crookes, D.J. (2005). A bioeconomic analysis of bushmeat hunting. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 272 (1560), 259-266.

Davies, A.G. (1990) Crop Protection, Sierra Leone: Mammal Ecology, Crop Damage and Pest Control. Technical Report 13.

Davies, G. (2002) Bushmeat and international development. Conservation Biology, 16, 587- 589.

Davies, G., and Brown, D. (2007). Bushmeat and Livelihoods: Wildlife Management and Poverty Reduction. Blackwell, Oxford.

De Merode, E., Homewood, K. & Cowlishaw, G. (2004) The value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural households living in extreme poverty in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological Conservation 118: 573-581.

De Merode E., Homewood K. & Cowlishaw G. (2003) Wild resources and livelihoods of poor households in Democratic Republic of Congo. Overseas Development Institute Wildlife Policy Briefing series, 1.

Dei, G.J.S. (1989) Hunting and gathering in a Ghanaian rain forest community. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 22, 225–243.

Doss, C., McPeak, J., Barrett, C. B. (2008) "Interpersonal, Intertemporal and Spatial Variation in Risk Perceptions: Evidence from East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, 36(8), 1453- 1468.

East, T., Kü mpel, N.F., Milner-Gulland, E.J., & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2005) Determinants of urban bushmeat consumption in Río Muni, Equatorial Guinea. Biological Conservation 126: 206- 215.

Elliot J. (2002) ‘Wildlife and Poverty Study’, DFID Rural Livelihoods Department, London, 80.

Fa, J., Currie, D., & Meeuwig, J. (2003) Bushmeat and food security in the Congo Basin: linkages between wildlife and people's future. Environmental Conservation, 30, 71-78.

Fa, J., Peres, C.A., & Meeuwig, J. (2002) ‘Impact of Market Hunting on Mammal Species in Equatorial Guinea’, Conservation Biology, 9, 1107-1115, 232-237.

Fa, J., Yuste, J.E.G. & Castelo, R. (2000). Bushmeat markets on Bioko Island as a measure of hunting pressure. Conservation Biology. 14: 1602–1613.

Falconer, J. (1992) Non-Timber Forest Products in Southern Ghana. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, Kent.

Fitzgibbon, C. D., Mogaka, H., & Fanshawe,J. H. (1995) Subsistence hunting in Arabuko-Sokoke forest, Kenya, and its effects on mammal populations. Conservation Biology 9:1995.

Ghana Statistical Service (2008) Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS 5). Accra, Ghana. 63

Grubb, P., Jones, T.S., Davies, A.G., Edberg, E., Starin, E.D. & Hill, J.E. (1998) Mammals of Ghana, Sierra Leone and The Gambia. Trendrine Press, St Ives.

Heslop, A., & Gorman, M., (2002) Chronic Poverty and Older People in the Developing World . Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper No. 10.

Holbech, L. (1998) Bushmeat survey: literature review, field work and recommendations for a sustainable community-based wildlife resource management system. Protected Areas Development Programme, Wildlife Department, Ministry of Lands and Forestry , Accra , Ghana .

Illukpitiya, P. & Yanagida, J.F., (2008) Role of income diversification in protecting natural forests: evidence from rural households in forest margins of Sri Lanka, Agroforest. Syst. 74, 51–62.

Illukpitiya, P. & Yanagida, J.F. (2010) Farming vs forests: Trade-off between agriculture and the extraction of non-timber forest products. Ecological Economics, 69, 1952-1963.

Jerozolimski, A. & Peres, C.A. (2003) Bringing home the biggest bacon: a cross-site analysis of the structure of hunter-kill profiles in Neotropical forests. Biological Conservation, 111, 415–425.

Juste, J., Fa, J.E., Perez del Val, J. and Castroviejo, J. (1995) Market dynamics of bushmeat species in Equatorial Guinea. J.Appl.Ecol. 32, 454-467.

Kaplinsky and Morris (2001) R. Kaplinsky and M. Morris , A handbook for value chain research; (www.ids.ac/global); (www.nu.ac.za/csds).

Larson, D. F. & Plessmann, F. (2009) "Do farmers choose to be inefficient? Evidence from Bicol," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, 90(1), 24-32, September.

Lloyd-Sherlock (2000) Old age and Poverty in Developing Countries: New Policy Challenges.

Koppert, G., Dounias, E., Froment, A. and Pasquet, P., (1996) Consommation alimentaire dans trois populations forestières de la région côtière du Cameroun : Yassa, Mvae et Bakola. 477- 496, In L’alimentation en forêt tropicale, interactions bioculturelles et perspectives de développement. Volume I, Les ressources alimentaires : production et consommation. C.M. Hladik, A. Hladik., H. Pagezy, O. F. Linares, G.J.A. Koppert et A. Froment (eds.), UNESCO. Paris.

Kü mpel, N. (2006) Incentives for sustainable hunting of bushmeat in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea. PhD thesis, Imperial College London and Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London.

Lloyd-Sherlock, P. (2000) “Old Age and Poverty in Developing Countries: New Policy Challenges”.

Marfo, K., Anchirinah,V. & Wiggins, S. (2002). Environmental policies and livelihoods in the forest margins of southern Ghana. Crops Research Institute, Kumasi, Ghana. 64

Martin, G. H. G. (1983) Bushmeat in Nigeria as a natural resource with environmental implications Environmental Conservation 10 : 125–32.

McDaniels, T., Axelrod, L. J. and Slovic, P. (1995), Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk. Risk Analysis, 15: 575–588. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995

Mendelson, S., Cowlishaw, G. & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2003) Anatomy of a bushmeat commodity chain in Takoradi, Ghana. Journal of Peasant Studies, 31, 73–100.

Milner-Gulland, E.J., Bennett, E.L. and the SCB 2002 Annual Conference Wild Meat Group (2003) Wild meat - the bigger picture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 351-357.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.

Muchaal, P.K. & Ngandjui, G. (1999) Impact of village hunting on wildlife populations in the western Dia Reserve, Cameroon. Conservation Biology, 13, 385-396.

Mulungu, L.S., Makundi, R.H., Leirs, H., Massawe, A.W., Vibe-Petersen, S., Stenseth, N.C., (2003) The rodent density–damage function in maize fields at an early growth stage. In: Singleton, G.R., Hinds, L.A., Krebs, C.J., Spratt, D.M. (Eds.), Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management. ACIAR Monograph 96. ACIAR, Canberra, 301–303.

Mwanjabe, P.S., Sirima, F.B., Lusingu, J., (2002) Crop losses due to outbreaks of Mastomys natalensis (Smith, 1834) Muridae, Rodentia, in the Lindi Region of Tanzania. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 49, 133–137.

National Population Census (2000) Ghana Statistical Service. Accra, Ghana.

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. (1995) Wildlife and Food Security in Africa. FAO Conservation Guide 33. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: 200.

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. (1997) Wildlife and food security in Africa, FCO

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. (1998a). Wildlife development plan 1998-2003. Volume 6: sustainable use of bushmeat. Wildlife Department, Ministry of Lands and Forestry, Republic of Ghana, Accra.

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. (1998b) Wildlife utilization and food security in Africa Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Odonkor S., Gbogdo F., Attuquayefio D. and Bimi L. (2007) The Wildlife Trade In Ghna : A Threat To Biodiversity Conservation, Ghana Journal of Science, 47 ; 101-106.

Opoku, K. (2006). Forest Governance in Ghana, an NGO perspective. FERN report by Forest Watch Ghana, March 2006. FERN, Moreton in Marsh.

Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Pandya-Lorch, R. & Rosegrant, M.W., (2001) Global food security: A review of the challenges. In: The Unfinished Agenda. Perspectives on Overcoming Hunger, 65

Poverty, and Environmental Degradation, ed. P. Pinstrup-Andersen, & R. Pandya-Lorch, 7– 17. Washington DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Schenck, M., E. Effa, M. Starkey, D. S. Wilkie, K. Abernethy, P. Telfer, R. Godoy, and A. Treves. (2006) Why people eat bushmeat: results from two-choice taste tests in Gabon, Central Africa. Human Ecology 34:433 - 445.

Schulte-Herbrüggen, B. (2011) The importance of bushmeat in the livelihoods of cocoa farmers living in a wildlife depleted farm-forest landscape, SW Ghana. PhD thesis, University College London and Zoological Society of London, UK.

Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1.

Scoones, I., Melnyk, M., Pretty, J. (1992) The Hidden Harvest. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Somnasang, P., Rathakette, P. & Rathanapanya, S. (1988) The role of natural foods in Northeast Thailand. In G.W. Lovelace, S. Subhadhira & S. Simaraks, éd. Rapid rural appraisal in Northeast Thailand. Khon Kaen Univ., Khon Kaen, Thaïlande.

Smith, K., Barrett, C.B., Box, P.W. (2000) Participatory risk mapping for targeting research and assistance: with an example from east African pastoralists. World Development 28, (11), 1945–1959.

Solly, H (2004) Bushmeat Hunters and Secondary Traders: Making the Distinction for Livelihood Improvement. Wildlife Policy Briefing No. 8. London: ODI.

Starkey M. (2004) Commerce and subsistence: the hunting, sale and consumption of bushmeat in Gabon, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.

Reardon, T., Vosti, S.A. (1995) Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries: Asset categories and investment poverty. World Development, 23 (9), 1495-1506.

Reardon, T., Taylor, J.E., Stamoulis, K., Lanjouw, P., Balisacan, A. (2000) “Effects of Nonfarm Employment on Rural Income Inequality in Developing Countries: An Investment Perspective,” Journal of Agricultural Economics 51(2): 266-288.

Ribot, J. C. (1998), Theorizing Access: Forest Profits along Senegal's Charcoal Commodity Chain. Development and Change, 29: 307–341.

Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., Zaal, F. & Dietz, T. (2005) Reconciling conservation goals and livelihood needs: new forest management perspectives in the 21st century. Pages 3–29 in M. A. F. Ros Tonen, and T. Dietz, editors. African forests between nature and livelihood resources: interdisciplinary studies in conservation and forest management. Edwin Mellen, Lewiston, New York, New York, USA.

Rowcliffe, J.M., Milner-Gulland, E.J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2005) Do bushmeat consumers have other fish to fry? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 274-276. 66

Rowcliffe, J.M., de Merode, E. & Cowlishaw, G. (2004) Do wildlife laws work? Species protection and the application of a prey choice model to poaching decisions. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 271: 2631-2636.

Townson, I.M. (1995). Incomes from non-timber forest products: patterns of enterprise activity in the forest zone of southern Ghana. Oxford Forestry Institute, University of Oxford, UK.

Wilkie, D. S., & Carpenter, J. F. (1999) Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: An assessment of impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiversity and Conservation 8(7), 927-955.

Wilkie, D.S. & Godoy, R.A. (2001) Income and price elasticities of bushmeat demand in lowland Amerindian societies. Conservation Biology 15: 761–769.

Wilkie, D.S., Sidle, J.G., Boundzanga, G.C. (1992) Mechanised logging, market hunting, and a bank loan in Congo. Conservation Biology, 6(4), 570-580.

Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Sjaastad, E. & Berg, G.K. (2004) Counting on the environment: forest incomes and the rural poor, World Bank Environment Department Working Paper vol. 98 Washington, D.C.

Yanggen, D., Angu, K., & Tehamou, N. (2010) Landscape scale conservation in the Congo Basin: Lessons learned from the Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Hunter Association Constitutions Source: Hunter Association Constitution

2.1: Kwaman Hunter Association Kwaman and Jeduako; Fire arms hunters society (Sekyere west district) Motto: Unity, love and progress PREAMBLE: We members of above Society, realising the need to promote the welfare of our members, do hereby promulgate and solemnly adopt this constitution for our guidance ARTICLE 1: A. The name of the Society shall be Kwamang – Jeduako Fire Arm Hunters Society of Sekyere West District. It is non political, non profit making but a charitable and social society. B. MOTTO: Unity, Love and Progress. ARTICLE:2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES: A. To help establish a forum for discussing matters in respect of hunting and foster close relationship among members of the society. B. To solve problems C. To help protect bush fires and the use of Gin traps (Jack) by public education and track down those poisonous chemicals in fishing and killing of animals. D. Help each other society ARTICLE 3: MEMBERSHIP A. Membership shall be open to all Hunters and meat sellers Kwamang/Jeduako area.

2.2: Jachie Hunter Association Fire Arms Hunters Association (Jachie-Bosomtwe district) Motto:Unity and Love (Nkabom ne Odo) Article 1: NAME OF THE ASSOCIATION The name of the Association shall be known and called Jachie Fire Arm Hunters Association of Bosomtwe District. ARTICLE 2: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES A. The Association which is non Partism seeks to help establish a form for discussion matters in respect to hunting, bush fires and foster close relationship among the members of the association B. To solve meat problems C. To help protect bush Fires and use of Gin traps (Jack) by public education D. To educate the public on those who use poisonous chemicals in fishing and killing of animals E. Help each other socially

Appendix 2: List of cited bushmeat species. The table lists each species accompanying local name in Twi, scientific name, IUCN status and set price set by Kwaman’s Hunter Association. IUCN Species Twi Scientific name Price (credi) Status 1 Mud Turtles/Tortoises Akyikyidea Pelusios subniger 2 LC 2 Pelos Flying Squirrel Ohan Anomalurus pelii 5 DD 3 White-throated Francolin Akukohwedee Francolinus albogularis 5 LC 4 Black-casqued Hornbill Owam Ceratogymna atrata 5 LC 5 Great Blue Turaco Kokokyinaka Corythaeola cristata 5 LC 6 Ground Squirrel Akadia Xerus erythropus 6.5 LC-S 7 Cusimanse Ahwea Crossarchus obscurus 7 LC-U 8 Giant Rat Kusie Cricetomys gambianus 7 LC-S 9 Giant Forest Squirrel Kukuban Protoxerus stangeri 7.5 LC-U 10 Forest Genet Cat Animefaa Genetta maculata 12 LC-U 11 Two-spotted Palm Civet Aberebee Nandinia binotata 12 LC-U 12 Crested Guinea Fowl Akonfem Guttera pucherani 15 LC 15 13 Diana Monkey Boapia Cercopithecus diana (Protected) V-D 14 Marsh Mongoose Dompo Atilax paludinosus 15 LC-D 15 Mona Monkey Okwakuo Cercopithecus mona 15 LC-U 15 16 Olive Colobus Asibe Procolobus verus (Protected) NT-U 17 Spot-nosed Monkey Ahwenhema Cercopithecus petaurista 15 LC-U 18 White-breasted Guinea fowl Akonfem Agelastes meleagrides 15 V-D 19 Brush-tailed Porcupine Apese Atherurus africanus 20 LC-U 20 Royal Antelope Adowa Neotragus pygmaeus 20 LC-D 21 Cane Rat / Grasscutter Akrantie Thryonomys swinderianus 25-40 LC 22 Bay Duiker Odabo Cephalophus dorsalis 40 LC-D 23 Black Duiker Owiou Cephalophus niger 50 LC-D 24 Maxwell Duiker Otwe Cephalophus maxwelli 50 LC-D 25 Baboon Kontranfi Papio anubis 70 LC-I 26 Bush Buck Wasane Tragelaphus scriptus 150 LC-S 27 Red River Hog Kokote Potamochoerus porcus 200 LC-D 28 African Python Oninin Python sebae Protected - 29 Bosmanos Potto Aposo Perodicticus potto Protected LC-S 30 Bushbaby Aprekesima Galago senegalensis Protected LC-D 31 Civet Cat Kankane Civettictis civetta Protected LC-U 32 Crested Porcupine Kotoko Hystrix cristata Protected LC-U 33 Giant Pangolin Opra Smutsia gigantea Protected NT-D 34 Tree Pangolins Aprawa Phataginus tricuspis Protected NT-D Price Set by Kwaman Hunter Association, Protected: Protected under Ghana’s Wildlife Law and Regulation IUCN Status (Source: IUCN Redlist, 17 August 2011): LC (Least Concern), LR (Lower Risk), NT (Near- Threatened), VU (Vulnerable), EN (Endangered), DD (Data Deficient) Population trend: D (Decreasing), S (Stable), I (Increasing), U (Unknown)

Appendix 3: Ghana’s Wildlife Laws and Regulations

Source : Forestry Commission of Ghana

L.I. 685 – Wildlife Conservation Regulations, 1971 L.I. 1284 – Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Regulations, 1983 L.I. 1357 – Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Regulations, 1988 L.I. 1452 – Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Regulations, 1989

PART V - RESTRICTIONS ON HUNTING ETC No person shall at any time hunt, capture or destroy any of the species mentioned in the First Schedule to these Regulations No person shall at any time hunt, capture or destroy young animals or Animals accompanied by their young, Of any of the species mentioned in the Second Schedule to these Regulations No person shall between the 1st day of August and the 1st day of December in any year hunt, capture or destroy any of the species mentioned in the second and Third Schedules to these Regulations. No person shall manufacture, use or be in possession of any gin trap which may be used for the purpose of hunting, capturing or destroying any animal. No person shall hunt, capture or destroy any wild animal by using nest (except in the case of fish or poisonous snakes) unless authorized in writing to do so by the Chief Game and Wildlife Office. No persons shall hunt, capture or destroy any wild animal using pitfalls, snares effective only in conjunction with pitfalls, poison or poisonous weapons. Any person who contravenes any provision of regulations 1 to 4 shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred new cedis or to imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.

FIRST SCHEDULE ANIMALS COMPLETELY PROTECTED The hunting, capturing or destroying of any species listed in this schedule is absolutely prohibited at all time. SERIES A – MAMMAL SCIENTIFIC NAME Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes Black and White Colobu polykomos Olive colobu Colobus verus Red colobus Colobus badius Diana monkey Cercopithecus diana Bosman’s potto Perodicticus potto Bush baby Galago senegalensis Galagoides demidovi Giant pangolin Main gigantean Long tailed Manis tetradactyla Tree pangolin Manis tricuspis Aardvark Crycteropus afer Manatee Trichechus senegalensis Lion Panthera leo Leopard Panthera pardus Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus Rate; pr Honey Badger Mellivora capensis Clawless otter Anonyx capensis 70

Golden cat Felis Lynx Felis caracal Serval Felis serval African civet Viverra civetta Two spotted palm civet Nandinia binotata Forest genet Genetta maculata Wild cat Felis libyca Side striped jackal Canis adutus Elephant Loxodonta africana Palm squirrels Expixerus ebii Hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibious Pygym hippopotamus Cheropsis libriensis Senegal hartebeest Damaliscus lunatus Sitatunga Tragelephas spekei Eland Taurotragus derbianus Water chevrontain Hyyamoshcus aquaticus Bongo Boocercus eucrycerus Roan antelope Hippopotamus Giant forest hog Hylochoerus meinertxhgeni Reed buck Redunca redunca Red-fronted gazelle Gazella rufifrons Yellow-backed duiker Cephallophus silvicultor

Appendix 4: Household Questionnaire Introduction: • Good morning/afternoon my name is Justine Alexander and I am a university student carrying out a study on bushmeat consumption and the role of bushmeat hunting on rural livelihoods in the Ashanti region of Ghana. • I would be grateful if you could spare me some time to share some information/give me your views on this topic. • All personal information will remain strictly confidential. – I will not share your name with anyone. • Feel free to not answer any questions or stop the interview at any time. • Feel free to ask any questions for clarification. • This interview is expected to last 30-40 minutes.

Date: Time: Village Section: Household ID:

I Household Survey Household Number: Location: A. Basic Demographics 1 Number of People in Household (last month) 2 For the household head: A Ethnicity B How many year in village C Religion 4 Assets (household) a Area of Land owned b House type (concrete, wood) Roof material House size 71

c Number of animals d Number of vehicles 5 How comfortable do you consider yourself? B. Livelihood screening 7 What are the livelihood activities carried out by each household adults? 8 Rank livelihood activities as household income source 9 How often is each activity carried out? 10 Membership of an association or community group b Name of the group? C. FARMER (if livelihood) 1 What crops are grown on the land? 2 Rank crops in order of income generator How many bags of each crop do you make in a given year? 3 Rank crops in order of regularly eaten 4 Do you farm primarily for income or for food? 5 How far is your farm from your household Crop Pests 6 In the last 12 months have your crops been raided? What crops tend to be raided? What months does it tend to particularly be a problem? 7 To what extend have they been raided 8 Do you do anything to prevent crop raiding? Hunting 9 Do you hunt on your farm b How? 10 What species do you hunt 11 Why do you hunt (Rank if many reasons) 12 Do you primarily consume or sell the catch? 13 In the last month how many animals did you catch? D. HUNTER (if Livelihood) Temporal 1 Do you hunt all year round? a If not what months do you hunt? b What months do you hunt the most? 2 What type of Hunting does the household do 3 Rank which hunting types you use the most? 4 What are the reasons for pursuing hunting? 5 Usually how far do you go to hunt? (Distance) 6 Do you use hunting to support your family during times of hardship? 7 Could you cope without hunting? To what extent would you be affected 8 Would you want your son to be a hunter? why? 9 When did you last go hunting? a Did you catch anything? what species? E Traders (if Livelihood) 1 what do you trade? 2 Where do you trade 3 What type of stall do you have 4 Do you trade bushmeat? F CONSUMPTION (Directed to every Household) 1 How often do you eat meat? 72

2 How often do you eat fish 3 How often do you eat bushmeat? b What species of bushmeat do you eat the most of? c What type of fish do you eat most of? 4 What kind of protein to you eat the most of? 5 Is there a time of year when you eat more bushmeat? b If so what months? 6 What 3 species are eaten the most during this time? b How often do you eat each species 7 Where do you buy your bushmeat (rank) Specific 8 When was the last time you ate bushmeat? b What species? Significant 7 Do you consider bushmeat a significant part of your preferred diet? b Could you cope without it? 8 Could you cope without fish? b What would you do? Preference 11 What kind of meat do you prefer? (including fish) 12 Do you have a preference of a type of fish? c What species of bushmeat do you prefer? 13 Scenario a If fish is cheap in the market I will buy more fish then bushmeat? b If the price of bushmeat increases I will continue to buy bushmeat? F. PAST CHANGES (Last 10 Years) 1 The amount of bushmeat sold in the village changed? Has this affected you 2 Has the composition of species changed? How? What species? 3 Has the price of bushmeat changed? Has this deterred you from buying bushmeat? 4 How has the amount of fish sold in the village changed? 5 Has the price of fish changed? G. RISK PROFILE(everyone) 1 What difficulties face your household related to your main livelihood in a given year? 2 Rank the listed based on their severances 3 Rank them based on their frequency Example list: Rainfall pattern Food shortages Physical insecurity Low price for crops wish to sell 4 Lean Period Are you concerned about feeding your family If so what months are you mostly concerned (lean season) What kind of food is hard to get for the household during that period? Has this changed in the last 10 years

Appendix 5: Hunter Questionnaire Introduction : • Good morning/afternoon my name is Justine Alexander and I am a university student carrying out a study on the role of bushmeat hunting on rural livelihoods in the Ashanti region of Ghana. • I would be grateful if you could spare me some time to share some information/give me your views on this topic. • All personal information will remain strictly confidential. • Feel free to not answer any questions or stop the interview at any time. • Feel free to ask any questions for clarification. • This interview is expected to last 30 minutes.

Date: Time: Village Section: Individual ID:

A. DEMOGRAPHICS 1 Sex 2 Age 3 Highest Educational level 4 Ethnicity 5 How many year in village 6 Do you own any farm land? 7 What are the livelihood activities carried out? 8 Rank livelihood activities as income source 9 How comfortable do you consider yourself? 10 How long have you been part of the hunter association? 11 What are the reasons for pursuing hunting? (rank) B. SEASONAL 1 Do you hunt all year round? a If not what months do you hunt why? b What months do you not hunt why? c What months do you catch the most animals? (Heavy months) why? d What months do you catch the least animals? (Low months) why? 2 When do you hunt 3 How many hours do you hunt on average? 4 What equipment / hunting strategy do you use? 5 Rank the Hunting type by frequency used? 6 Number of owned hunting equipments 7 What do you predominantly spend your money on for hunting? Heavy Hunting period 8 What equipment is predominantly used? 9 Number of hunting days/week for this period 10 Number of caught animals/ week for this period 11 Where do you hunt during this period 12 Which species do you catch most? 13 Which species do you earn most money from? 14 How far do you travel to hunt in this period? 15 Mode of Transport 74

16 What do you do with your own game? (Rank) Low hunting period 17 What equipment is predominantly used? 18 Number of hunting days/week for this period 19 Number of caught animals/ week or month for this period 20 Where do you hunt during this period 21 Which species do you catch most? 22 Which species do you earn most money from? 23 How far do you travel to hunt in this period? 24 Mode of Transport 25 What do you do with your own game? (Rank) HUNTING 26 Do you perceive rising fuel prices as a disincentive to hunting? 27 During the rainy season is it more difficult to hunt? 28 Do you use hunting to support your family during times of hardship? 29 Could you cope without hunting b How much would you be affected? c What would you do if you couldn't hunt? 30 Would you want your son to be a hunter? why? Hunter consumption/trade 31 Of all the meat you consume what proportion hunt yourself 32 What species is your favorite to eat? 33 What species do you eat most often? 34 Why do or don’t you sell your game to Kumasi? b In a year how often do you go to Kumasi? 35 What are the main future risks to your hunting livelihood? C. PAST CHANGES (Last 10 Years) 1 The amount of bushmeat sold in the village changed? 2 Has the composition of species changed? How? What species are no longer hunted? 3 Has the price of bushmeat changed? D. SPECIFICS 1 When did you last go hunting? a What did you catch How far did you travel Where did you go

Appendix 6: Trader/Chopbar/Drinkingbar Questionnaire Introduction : • Good morning/afternoon my name is Justine Alexander and I am a university student carrying out a study on bushmeat consumption and the role of bushmeat hunting on rural livelihoods in the Ashanti region of Ghana. • I would be grateful if you could spare me some time to share some information/give me your views on this topic. • All personal information will remain strictly confidential. • Feel free to not answer any questions or stop the interview at any time. • Feel free to ask any questions for clarification. • This interview is expected to last 30 minutes.

Date: Time: Village Section: Individual ID:

BUSHMEAT TRADER A. DEMOGRAPHICS 1 Sex 2 Age 3 Highest Educational level 4 Ethnicity 5 How many year in village 6 Do you own any farmland? 7 What are the livelihood activities carried out? 8 Rank livelihood activities as income source 9 How comfortable do you consider yourself? 10 How long have you traded/served bushmeat B. TRADING 1 Do you trade/serve bushmeat? What type of trader? 2 What other types of meat/fish do you trade/serve? 3 What do you trade/serve the most of? (Including bushmeat) 4 Do you sell bushmeat all year round 5 If no what months do you trade/serve bushmeat 6 What are the heavy months for trading bushmeat why? b What are the low months for trading bushmeat why? 7 What bushmeat species are sold at the highest price? 8 What bushmeat species are sold at the lowest price? Peak season 9 How often do you sell bushmeat? 10 What do you trade most of during this period? 11 What provides the most amount of income? (rank) 12 On average where is bushmeat bought from: (rank) a Farmers b Hunters c Kumasic traders d Other 13 On average where do you sell your bushmeat: (rank) a Kumasi b Local Market c Chopbars d Households 76

e Own consumption 14 What species are more available? 15 What species provides the most income? Lean Season 16 How often do you sell bushmeat? 17 What do you trade most of during this period? 18 What provides the most amount of income? (rank) 19 On average where is bushmeat bought from: (rank) a Farmers b Hunters c Kumasic traders d Other 20 On average where do you sell your bushmeat: (rank) a Kumasi b Local Market c Chopbars d Households e Own consumption 21 What species are more available 22 What species provides the most income? TRADE 23 How much of the trade goes to Kumasi? 24 Could you cope without trading bushmeat? 25 How would you be affected? 26 What would you do? PAST CHANGES (Last 10 Years) 27 The amount of bushmeat sold in the village changed? 28 Has the composition of species changed? 29 How? What species are no longer hunted? Has this change in availability & composition affected you? How? 30 Has the price of bushmeat changed? b Has it detered people to buy bushmeat? c To what extent? Specifics 31 In the last week how many animals were traded? b From whom goods predominantly bought c To whom predominantly sold d What species were traded?