Search

Projections of human population growth for 2050 indicate that Africa is expected to steadily increase its rural population, raising questions on how to best accommodate people while minimizing impacts on biodiversity. We explored the outcomes of scenarios of rural population growth mediated by housing development. We designed our scenarios based on (i) patterns of housing development (i.e., housing densification versus expansion), (ii) level of human population growth, and (iii) forest protection. Using camera traps, we surveyed mammals in the moist Afromontane forests of southwestern Ethiopia. We modelled mammals' responses to current and alternative housing development trajectories, using generalized additive mixed models. Our results suggest that (i) rural population growth is likely to negatively influence several mammal species, including a threatened predator (the leopard) as well as common crop raiding species such as baboons; (ii) negative impacts of population growth are likely to be exacerbated if new housing encroaches the forest (i.e., expansion), and likely to be less detrimental if houses are built within the existing human footprint (i.e., densification); and (iii) effects of human population growth can be modified by land-use decisions unrelated to biodiversity conservation, such as protection of economically important forest cover (native coffee forest in our study area). The location, extent and magnitude of housing development in southwestern Ethiopia can limit the ability of several mammal species to persist in the landscape. Our findings suggest that incorporating the ecological effects of housing development into landscape planning is fundamental to align conservation goals with development plans. • We surveyed mammals in undisturbed and managed coffee forests in Ethiopia. • We modelled rural housing density projections to the year 2047. • We predicted mammals responses to housing development scenarios. • Development prioritizing built areas and forest protection had better outcomes. • Landscape planning should combine development strategies and conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Africa's Protected Area (PA) estate includes some of the world's most iconic wildlife and wildlands and preserves ecosystem services upon which people depend. However, Africa's PAs are facing a growing array of threats resulting in significant degradation, factors compounded by chronic funding shortages. In this opinion piece, drawing from the available literature and collective experience of the author group, we look at the potential for collaborative management partnerships (CMPs) between state wildlife agencies and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to attract investment and technical capacity to improve PA performance. The three main CMP models—financial and technical support, co-management, and delegated management—yield median funding that is 1.5, 2.6 and 14.6 times greater than baseline state budgets for PA management. However, several factors limit the scaling of CMPs in Africa. Significant barriers include concerns from African governments, such as reluctance to engage in co-management and delegated CMPs due to perceptions that such partnerships may represent an admission of failure, result in a loss of revenues for government, or undermine sovereignty. There are also constraints associated with NGOs and donors that limit scaling of CMPs. We discuss how these issues might be addressed and propose a reframing of the discourse around CMPs. Specifically, we recommend that governments view CMPs as strategic, proactive tools that will enable them to unlock funding, investment and expertise for conservation and make recommendations to attract such investment. Preliminary evidence and the experience of the author group suggests that expanding CMPs for PAs could; improve PA management; share the costs of protecting Africa's PAs with the global community; build local capacity; help protect the ecosystem services upon which Africa's economies depend; stimulate rural development; and benefit local communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identifying the economic drivers of hunting and bushmeat consumption is crucial for understanding whether economic growth in tropical forest regions can foster poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation. However, studies investigating those drivers have drawn contrasting conclusions. Some authors attribute inconsistent findings to heterogeneous spatial and environmental contexts, yet other studies indicate that social factors may predominate over economical determinants. Here, we investigate bushmeat hunting and consumption by analyzing the relative importance of household-scale economic factors in diverse spatial and environmental contexts. We surveyed 240 households distributed across twenty diverse rural landscapes in a post-frontier region in Brazilian Amazonia. Our results show that hunting is more likely in locations with higher forest cover, where game availability is expected to be higher. In contrast, bushmeat consumption is widespread even in deforested landscapes near to urban centers. However, we find no evidence that household-scale economic factors determine variation in rural bushmeat consumption, regardless of spatial or environmental context. Consequently, we infer that future growth in income or wealth would be unlikely to significantly change patterns of bushmeat hunting and consumption. Instead, we find that eating bushmeat is mainly dependent on the hunting of relatively common species for subsistence and food sharing, rather than through market exchange. This demonstrates an important informal economy maintained by social relations. Work is needed to evaluate the sustainability of hunting these small to medium-sized species given they evidently provide useful ecosystem service to poor households and are likely to support social relations in rural Amazonia. • Understanding bushmeat consumption drivers is crucial for poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation strategies. • Bushmeat hunting and consumption in post-frontier Amazonia relies on relatively common species. • Hunting was mostly driven by forest cover, whereas social relations determined consumption levels. • Increasing wealth is unlikely to lead to changes in bushmeat hunting and consumption. • Identifying how bushmeat is acquired is key to understanding the drivers of bushmeat hunting and consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]