Conservation implications of wildlife utilization by indigenous communities in the southern Western Ghats of India

Published Date
1 September 2016, Vol.9(3):271–279, doi:10.1016/j.japb.2016.04.003
Open Access, Creative Commons license, Funding information

Original article

Author 

Arun Kanagavel ^a,,

Sethu Parvathy ^a,b

Paingamadathil Ommer Nameer ^c

Rajeev Raghavan^d

aConservation Research Group (CRG), St. Albert’s College, Banerji Road, Kochi, India

bDepartment of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Pondicherry University, Pudhucherry, India

cCenter for Wildlife Studies, College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), Thrissur, India

dDepartment of Fisheries Resource Management, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS), Kochi, India

Received 4 January 2016. Revised 1 April 2016. Accepted 6 April 2016. Available online 14 April 2016.

Abstract

Wildlife utilization in the tropics is massive, with nearly 5 million tons of bushmeat consumed by local communities. In India, a megadiversity nation, hunting—although illegal—is widespread among indigenous communities. However, the extent, frequency, and rationale for hunting, and factors influencing wildlife utilization are poorly known. Our study, based on 19 different indigenous communities in the Western Ghats region, revealed the utilization of 54 wild species/taxa. Although freshwater fish, herpetofauna, and small mammals were most frequently utilized, enforcement by the Forest Department was largely focused on large mammals. Gender, land ownership, number of domestic meats consumed, distance to markets, time spent hunting, and distance to hunting areas were major factors that affected wild meat utilization in the region. Although conservation needs to be focused on the most utilized groups, increasing access to domestic meats at remote settlements and integrating utilization of common, culturally prominent species can improve conservation of threatened fauna.

Keywords

• bushmeat
• domestic meat
• hunting
• indigenous communities
• Western Ghats–Sri Lanka Biodiversity Hotspot

---

Introduction

Forest-dwelling communities have relied on wildlife as a source of protein and income, and wild meat continues to support the subsistence of numerous indigenous communities worldwide (Cowlishaw et al., 2005 and Mfunda and Røskaft, 2010). In at least 62 countries, fish and wildlife contribute to about 20% of animal protein in rural diets (Nasi et al 2008), sometimes reaching 67–80% as in Sarawak and Central Africa (Peres, 2000 and Bennett et al., 2002). Wild meat is also rooted within the culture of indigenous communities (Brown and Marks, 2007 and Chinlampianga et al., 2013).

The scale at which wild meat is laundered from the tropics is massive, with several thousand tons being harvested annually from the forests of Africa, Asia, and South America (Fa and Peres, 2001, Corlett, 2007, Nasi et al., 2011 and Abernethy et al., 2013). Data collected in the 1990s revealed that local communities consumed more than 5 million tons of meat in Neotropical and Afrotropical forests (Fa and Peres, 2001and Fa et al., 2002). Such massive scale of overhunting for meat has resulted in local extirpation of numerous species (Milner-Gulland and Bennett, 2003 and Harrison, 2011). However, wild meat also has significant impacts on the livelihoods of human communities that subsist on this resource (Bennett et al., 2002 and de Merode et al., 2004). For example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 90% of the hunted meat is traded for vital commodities, medical supplies, or equipment to enhance the income-generating capacity of rural households (de Merode et al 2004).

In India, a megadiverse nation harboring four biodiversity hotspots, the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) was formulated in 1972 to protect wildlife and their related habitats. Various taxa are listed in six schedules of the Act, with those listed in Schedule I and Schedule II (Part II) being accorded absolute protection. Hunting, collection, or trade of trophies and animal articles derived from species listed in all the schedules of the WPA except Schedule V is prohibited or controlled. Only the indigenous communities living in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are allowed to hunt as per the WPA, whereas the Forest Rights Act of 2006 enables indigenous communities throughout the country to sustainably harvest minor forest products such as honey, lac, cocoon, herbs, and freshwater fish. In reality, numerous indigenous communities in the Northeastern and southern regions of India continue to hunt wild meat for consumption, and for supply to eateries and markets near their settlements (Madhusudan and Karanth, 2002, Aiyadurai et al., 2010 and Kanagavel and Raghavan, 2013).

The Western Ghats region in peninsular India, comprising a major portion of the Western Ghats–Sri Lanka Biodiversity Hotspot, harbors exceptional diversity of flora, fauna, and fungi (Myers et al., 2000, Bawa et al., 2007 and Molur et al., 2011). Apart from its rich biodiversity, the Western Ghats is also known for its very high human population density and pressure (Cincotta et al., 2000 and Shi et al., 2005). This high demographic pressure, coupled with macroeconomic factors, poverty, and poor governance have contributed to increasing anthropogenic impacts on the biodiversity of this region (Bawa et al 2007). Hunting driven by tradition, culture, subsistence, and demand for wild meat occurs across the Western Ghats (Madhusudan and Karanth, 2002, Bawa et al., 2007 and Kanagavel and Raghavan, 2013), with a recent study observing that 34 species are hunted in and around a protected area in the region (Gubbi and Linkie 2012). There is, however, a severe lack of understanding regarding the use of wildlife by indigenous communities (Velho et al 2012).

Through this study, focusing on the forests in the state of Kerala, which encompasses the southern region of the Western Ghats (Figure 1) and is one of the most biodiversity-rich regions in the Western Ghats–Sri Lanka hotspot, we aimed to (1) understand the extent, magnitude, methods, and rationale for wildlife utilization among indigenous communities; (2) examine the dynamics of meat consumption (wild vs. domestic); (3) generate information on the factors that influenced wild meat consumption; (4) assess the response to potential measures to reduce wild meat utilization; and (5) explore the existent law enforcement by the Forest Department (FD) towards wild meat utilization by indigenous communities.

Figure 1. Map of the Kerala part of the Western Ghats with details of the frequently consumed wild species/taxa, number of threatened species consumed and extent of indigenous individuals consuming wild meat (mean percentage of all wild meat species/taxa consumed) in the five administrative forest circles.

Materials and methods

Study area

Kerala State (38,863 km²), located in the southwestern part of the Western Ghats (Figure 1), comprises of tropical wet evergreen, semi-evergreen, and tropical moist deciduous forests. These forests are protected by the Kerala State Forest and Wildlife Department through a network of protected areas spread across 3,212 km² (KFD 2012). For the purpose of territorial jurisdiction, the FD is composed of 5 administrative circles—Northern, Eastern, Central, High Range, and Southern (Figure 1). A population of 484,839 individuals (Census of India—2011) belonging to 35 forest-dwelling indigenous communities, each with its own set of traditions and culture, are known from this region. Most of these communities are historically nomadic hunter–gatherers (Sathyapalan and Reddy 2010), and the practice of wild meat consumption for subsistence, medicine, and local trade is reported among them—with Sambar deer (Rusa unicolor), wild boar (Sus scrofa), Grey Junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii), and monitor lizard (Varanus flavescens) being the most utilized species (Yeshodharan et al 2011, Gubbi and Linkie, 2012 and Vijayakumar et al., 2015). Chelonians, by contrast, are a delicacy among the suburban and indigenous communities that consume them locally at their households, toddy (locally brewed liquor) shops and hotels; with no interstate trade (Krishnakumar et al., 2009, Gubbi and Linkie, 2012 and Kanagavel and Raghavan, 2013). Hunting is thought to have reduced among most indigenous communities in the region, and many of the local inhabitants have taken up farming as an alternative livelihood (Sathyapalan and Reddy 2010). Whatever hunting that continues is practiced largely using traditional techniques such as snares, scavenging from Asiatic wild dogs (Cuon alpinus) and domestic hunting dogs, with guns and explosive baits being rarely used (Gubbi and Linkie 2012).

Questionnaire survey

Because the information to be collected was of a sensitive nature, we carried out the survey at specific sites within the five forest administrative circles, where we had access to indigenous individuals who we were familiar with and trusted their information (see Madhusudan and Karanth 2002). A key informant from each indigenous community accompanied the interviewers (maximum of 2 individuals) to introduce them and the study to potential respondents at each site. Respondents from the indigenous communities at each site were selected based on the suggestions of these key informants. We attempted to reduce inaccuracy in the survey questions in this manner by allowing the key informants to choose respondents who they, in turn, were familiar with and considered trustworthy.

A pilot survey was undertaken to test a draft questionnaire and prepare a list of species that were commonly consumed across the region as revealed during our previous studies (Kanagavel and Raghavan, 2012 and Kanagavel et al., 2013). The final questionnaire was adjusted according to the feedback. Vertebrate groups, namely, mammals, birds, herpetofauna, and freshwater fish, were the groups targeted for the survey. Freshwater fish collected from within forested/protected areas have not been considered as wild meat/bushmeat, whereas non-domesticated terrestrial mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians gathered as food resources are considered as wild meat (Nasi et al 2008). However, given the fact that 60% of the native freshwater fish fauna in Western Ghats is endemic (Dahanukar and Raghavan 2013), one-third is threatened with extinction, and a large number of threatened species are harvested for subsistence (Dahanukar et al., 2011 and Raghavan et al., 2011), freshwater fish collected by the indigenous respondents from forest streams in this study have been considered as wild meat. After receiving the consent of respondents (names not recorded), face-to-face questionnaires with close-ended questions were administered in Malayalam, the local language of the region.

We requested details from respondents regarding the wild and domestic meat they consumed, including their favorite meat, frequency of consumption, rationale, source, and effort (Table 1). Details on trade in wild meat were also recorded. Whether conservation mitigations of alternative domestic meat and livelihood opportunities would help in reducing dependence on wild meat was assessed. Socio-economic characteristics of the indigenous respondents were also recorded (Table 2).

Table 1. Summary of responses received from indigenous communities in the Kerala part of the Western Ghats.

Query	Frequency (%) or mean ± standard deviation
No. of meals per day	1–5 meals/d, 2.8 ± 0.6
Types of domestic meat consumed	98% = fish, 97% = poultry (egg, chicken, duck), 70% = livestock (mutton, beef, pork, rabbit)
Source of domestic meats	Market/hotel = 86.6%, Homegrown = 12.3%, Gift = 1.1%
Frequency of market visit	17.6% = twice or more times in a week, 52.3% = once in 2 weeks, 25.2% = once or twice a month, 2.1% = less than once a month, 2.8% = never visit
Does the vendor visit you?	73.4% = yes, 26.6% = no
Favorite domestic meat	54% = poultry, 28% = livestock, 24% = fish, 2% = all domestic meats
Wild meat type consumed	88% = freshwater fish, 75% = herpetofauna, 56% = birds, 76% = small mammals, 77% = large mammals
Time spent for a hunting event	0–1440 hours, 33.4 ± 121.2 hours
Distance of hunting	8.9% = close to settlement, 26.7% = moderately away, 63.4% = very far away, 1% = adjoining forest
Favorite wild meats	32% = herpetofauna, 31.3% = small mammals, 20.0% = large mammals, 8.3% = all wild meats, 6.7% = birds, 4.3% = freshwater fish
Wild meat purchased	14.3% = yes, 85.7% = no
Wild meat type purchased	85.5% = freshwater fish, 14.5% = barking deer, mouse deer, wild boar, porcupine, flying squirrel, mongoose, monitor lizard & wild hare
Wild meat purchased from	60% = same community or other indigenous communities, 40% = non-indigenous locals
Wild meat sold	20% = yes, 80% = no
Type of wild meat sold	Freshwater fish
Wild meat sold to	65% = village forest council stall, 29.5% = hotel, 5.5% = locals
Meat preference	58.2% = wild meat, 22.3% = domestic meat, 17.1% = wild & domestic meat, 2.4% = do not like meat
Interest in a Forest Department job	62% = yes, 30.7% = no, 7.3% = already working with Forest Department
If Government provided domestic meat, will you stop eating wild meat?	38.1% = will not stop, 18% = will stop, 19.2% = might stop, 8.2% = do not know, 16.5% = currently do not consume wild meat

Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of indigenous respondents (n = 300) from the Kerala part of the Western Ghats.

Variables	Description, grouping in frequency (%) or mean ± standard deviation
Age	Respondent’s age (y): <18 y = 2.3%, 18–30 y = 24.3%, 31–50 y = 47%, >50 y = 26.3%
Gender	63.7% = male, 36.3% = female
Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG)	Respondents belonging to primitive tribal groups (Ministry of Tribal Affairs 2012); 21% = yes, 79% = no
Income	Monthly income earned by the respondent in US$. US$0–804.31, US$89.84 ± 78.06
Land ownership	Whether the respondent owned any land or not. 80.3% = yes, 19.7% = no
Forest circle	Kerala State Forest and Wildlife Department is composed of five administrative circles. Northern = 19%, Eastern = 17.3%, High Range = 18.3%, Central = 23.1%, Southern = 22.3%

A total of 311 questionnaires were administered between 2011–2013 among 19 indigenous communities in the five forest circles (Table 2), of which 11 were incomplete. Only 300 responses were therefore considered for further analyses.

Law enforcement by FD

We wanted to understand how the FD reacted to wildlife utilization by indigenous communities in terms of charging them as per the rules of the WPA. Towards this end, using the Right to Information Act (RTI), Government of India, 2005, we requested for information from the Kerala State Forest and Wildlife Department on violations of the WPA by indigenous communities for the period 2003–2012, including the status of these cases, and details of materials seized. A total of 44 responses were received, of which 23 were rejected because they stated that the requested information was unavailable as caste/religion was not recorded (n = 10), that no such offenses were recorded (n = 4), and that the RTI did not have a provision to provide consolidated data towards which the concerned office could be visited (n = 4). Of the 21 positive responses, which consisted of 125 individual cases, 75 were further processed as the rest of the cases did not provide details of the community type.

Analyses

All responses for the various questions and socio-economic characteristics were suitably coded for subsequent analysis (Table 1 and Table 2). The different wild species/taxa consumed by the respondents were grouped under freshwater fish, herpetofauna, birds, small mammals, and large mammals. Mammals generally weighing less than 5 kg (Bourliere 1975) and those listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) SSC Small Mammals Specialist Group were classified as small mammals, whereas the rest were classified as large mammals. In cases where only one species/taxon within a group was recorded as being consumed, the entire group was considered to be consumed. With regard to frequency of consumption, the highest frequency among the different species/taxa within the group was considered as the frequency of the entire group. The frequency at which each wild species/taxa were consumed was further analyzed to understand whether or not the respondent currently consumed them. If the respondent stated that the species/taxa had only been consumed ≥ 15 years ago, it was assumed that species/taxa was not consumed currently. Instead, it was included as being consumed over the respondent’s lifetime. Whether the wild species/taxa were specifically targeted for consumption or were captured incidentally was extrapolated to the entire group by calculating the mean of the coded values, which was rounded off to the closest whole number. Domestic meat consumption was similarly coded and grouped under fish, poultry, and livestock (Table 1). The coordinates for the markets visited by respondents for domestic meats were derived from Google Earth (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA), and Quantum GIS (QGIS Development Team) was used to compute the linear distances (km) between the markets and indigenous settlements. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 13 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Frequencies, percentages, and related means and standard deviations for the responses were first calculated to understand overall trends in the data. We expected a decrease in wild meat consumed currently to that consumed over the respondents’ lifetime owing to the effect of urbanization and increased enforcement effectiveness of FD (Sathyapalan and Reddy 2010), which was calculated using Mann–Whitney U test. Consequentially, the total number of species/taxa within each group that were not currently consumed was calculated, and Kruskal–Wallis test was used to understand whether consumption had reduced only in specific groups. We also tested (using Mann–Whitney U test) this hypothesis among individuals who were employed with the FD, assuming that such a job could have led to a reduction in wild meat consumption. Multinomial logistic and multilinear regressions were carried out to understand the socio-economic and hunting-related factors (Table 3 and Table 4) that influenced the current consumption of wild meat and the total number of wild species/taxa consumed.

Table 3. Multinomial logistic regression results that explain the correlates of the current consumption of wild meat by indigenous communities in the Kerala part of the Western Ghats (model χ² = 36.7, df = 10, p < 0.0001, –2 log likelihood = 88.1; pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) = 0.36).

Variable	Estimate	Std. error	Wald	p
Intercept	15.65	4.5	12.4	<0.001
Forest circle	–0.73	0.4	3.3	0.07
Age	–0.02	0.4	0.003	0.96
Gender	–1.91	0.8	6.3	0.01
Monthly income	0.00	0.0	0.3	0.59
Land ownership	–1.95	0.6	10.2	0.001
PVTG	–1.63	1.2	1.7	0.19
Market distance	–0.12	0.1	3.8	0.05
Market visit	0.28	0.3	0.8	0.39
Seller visit	–0.48	0.7	0.5	0.50
Meat preference	–0.43	0.3	1.6	0.20

PVTG = Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group; Std. = standard.

Table 4. Multilinear regression results that explain correlates of the total number of taxa/species currently consumed as wild meat by indigenous communities in the Kerala part of the Western Ghats (F = 16.97, df = 12, p < 0.0001).

Variable

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2287884X16300310