A conservation biologist and 45 colleagues from across 12 countries have assembled the largest-ever database of wild meat consumption in central Africa, and their findings challenge the assumption that blanket bans protect both wildlife and people.
The study matters because it cuts to the heart of a false choice that dominates conservation policy: wildlife protection versus human survival. When disease outbreaks occur—like the Ebola cases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda—the instinct is to ban wild meat entirely. But for millions of rural people living around the Congo rainforest, the second largest tropical rainforest in the world, wild meat is not a luxury or a choice. It is how families survive.
The research examined data from 12,453 households across 252 locations in six central African countries, representing 163,896 separate food consumption records collected over 15 years. The numbers reveal a stark reality: wild meat provides approximately 20 percent of the recommended daily protein intake for rural people—climbing to nearly 100 percent in the most remote regions. In towns and cities, that figure drops to 13 percent and 6 percent respectively, though modeling suggests urban consumption is growing. The source of this dependence is structural. Domestic livestock remains scarce across the region due to poor transport infrastructure, livestock diseases, and lack of forage. Without wild meat and freshwater fish, rural families have few sources of protein and essential micronutrients.
The economic dimension adds complexity. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of wild meat that subsistence hunters sell rather than consume locally has surged from 34 percent to 72 percent of their catches. What began as opportunistic sales has become a primary livelihood strategy for rural communities, driven by growing urban demand. This shift reflects both desperation and ambition—a way for hunters to earn income in regions where other opportunities are nearly nonexistent.
Disease transmission remains a legitimate concern. The Bundibugyo virus, which causes Ebola, can spread through the handling and consumption of infected wild animals, and each outbreak triggers calls for complete bans. But the authors argue this approach risks humanitarian catastrophe. Instead, they propose legal and sustainable use frameworks tailored to the realities on the ground.
Their solution is neither ban nor unrestricted hunting. Clear national laws, co-designed with the people who hunt and eat wild meat, could enable sustainable management of non-protected species in rural areas. Such frameworks would formalize the sector while creating the regulatory structure needed for early warning of wildlife-transmitted diseases. It is a model that acknowledges both ecological limits and human need.
The research was drawn from WILDMEAT, an open-access database launched to standardize wild meat data across studies and regions. That infrastructure, and the collaborative network of researchers it represents, made this comprehensive regional assessment possible. The work signals a shift from broad pronouncements toward evidence-based policy grounded in the lived realities of the communities most affected.
For central Africa's rural poor, the question is not whether to use wild meat, but how to do so sustainably and safely. This study offers a framework for asking—and answering—that harder question.