Download 1 BUSHMEAT AND EUROPEAN MIGRATORY BIRDS

Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
BUSHMEAT AND EUROPEAN MIGRATORY BIRDS CONSERVATION
by
Carlo Contesso
A Major Paper submitted to the faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Natural Resources
Major: Natural Resources
Committee
Dr. David L. Trauger, Chair; Dr. Gary R. Evans, Dr. Heather E. Eves, Dr. Michael J. Mortimer
September 10, 2009
Falls Church, VA
Key Words: Africa, Afro-Palearctic bird, biodiversity conservation, bushmeat, Europe, flyway,
long-distance migratory bird, migratory bird
1
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Bushmeat and European migratory birds conservation
Carlo Contesso
ABSTRACT
In 1979 the Bonn Convention (CMS) was internationally signed to secure the
conservation of migratory species, yet still today many long-distance migrants wintering in
Africa are decreasing and not all the drivers behind these negative population trends are known.
In the wake of international wildlife conservation efforts to stop biodiversity loss, this paper
draws attention to an almost uninvestigated possible cause, the African consumptive use of
wildlife, known south of the Sahara as bushmeat.
In order to estimate the likelihood of a relation between these two phenomena, this deskstudy analyzes together ornithological and bushmeat sources. While insufficient data is currently
available to cement a connection at this time, this investigation supports the necessity of further
research on migratory birds on their non breeding ranges, as already supported by the
ornithological world. It individuates the necessity of deepening our knowledge of bushmeat use
in the Sahelian countries, especially by nomadic populations, and in Sudan and Ethiopia. It
points out the lack of detailed data on avian prey recorded today in bushmeat literature, and the
fact that agro-pastoralist communities might consume more bird prey outside the bushmeat trade.
This work is not intended to be conclusive, but naturally leads to more research and new
conservation/management actions for the preservation of biodiversity at international level.
ii
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1
MIGRATORY BIRDS.................................................................................................................2
Western Palearctic and Afro-Palearctic migratory birds (APM) ...............................3
The flyway concept ..........................................................................................................6
APM conservation status .................................................................................................8
PRINCIPAL CAUSES FOR APM DECLINES .......................................................................11
EU Common Agricultural Policy and Agri-environment Regulation ........................12
Agricultural development in Africa: desertification, chemicals, and food .................13
Climate change .................................................................................................................15
Premigratory fattening and hunting in the Mediterranean regions ...........................16
CONSERVATION TOOLS FOR APM.....................................................................................19
The Bern, Bonn and Rio Conventions ...........................................................................19
The African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources .....21
The African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) ...............................................21
The EU Bird and Habitat Directives, Nature 2000 and the Emerald Network .........22
The Important Bird Areas (IBAs) ..................................................................................25
THE BUSHMEAT PHENOMENON IN THE AFRICAN RANGELANDS .........................28
East and Southern Africa ................................................................................................29
Sahel ..................................................................................................................................32
DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................33
Bird hunting in sub-Saharan Africa may be more habitual than currently believed
............................................................................................................................................33
APM and the adaptability of the bushmeat phenomenon............................................36
The indirect threat of ecosystem disturbance ...............................................................39
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................41
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................45
APPENDIX I ...................................................................................................................................56
iii
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
INTRODUCTION
Papageno:
“Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja,
Stets lustig heissa hopsasa!
Ich Vogelfänger bin bekannt
bei Alt und Jung im ganzen Land. (…)”
“The bird-catcher I am indeed,
Always happy, heidi heh hey!
I, the bird-catcher, am well known
To old and young throughout the land.”
W.A. Mozart (librettist E. Schikaneder). 1791. Die Zauberflöte. Act 1, scene 2.
Exploiting birds, either for food or to be kept as melodious pets, is such a common custom in
many societies that a bird-catcher found his place in one of music’s most successful
masterpieces, as sang in this renowned cavatina. Catching birds is a relatively simple and
rewarding use of wildlife; it does not require the means and effort needed to hunt large game. It
can pass rather unnoticed, and it yields an excellent source of protein.
The roots of this practice can be traced back into antiquity. For instance in Boboli, the
very first renaissance garden built in Florence in the second half of the 1500s, there are still the
ragnaie (i.e. the places of the spiders), straight alleys cut among sweet bay (Laurus nobilis) and
evergreen oak (Quercus ilex) thickets which were lined with fine nets to catch songbirds for the
Medici’s aviaries and banquets. In another example, Egyptian bird hunting scenes are depicted
on the walls of the tomb of Neb-Amun, in Thebes, dating back to ca. 1350 BC. Ancient customs
have remained firmly rooted, as the reported export to Europe of almost two million Common
Quails (Coturnix coturnix) trapped in 1913 in Modern Egypt (Brouwer & Boere 2009), the
38,000 shot during only two months in Serbia in 2003 (TRAFFIC 2008) and the estimated total
of 500 million migrant birds trapped or killed every year in the Mediterranean area
(http://www.BirdLife.org/action/change/sustainable-hunting/index.html).
Notwithstanding international efforts toward the conservation of European biodiversity,
many migratory species which breed in Europe and winter in Africa are declining. Most of the
1
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
international efforts concentrate on waterbirds and soaring birds, whose ecology is better known.
Contrastingly, to date migratory landbirds are less protected by European conservation efforts in
their non-breeding ranges, especially small long-distance migrants whose movements in the
African continent are less known. Some of the causes for these declines have been identified, yet
there is a pressing need for continued research, to secure conservation and invert the negative
trends.
This study investigates the likelihood of a connection between the rampant
overhunting/bushmeat crisis which is plaguing most of sub-Saharan rangelands, and longdistance migrant’s populations. After a concise introduction to European migratory birds, their
known causes for decline, and the principal international agreements for their protection, with a
particular emphasis on European activities, this paper focuses on the bushmeat phenomenon, the
exploitation of birds as bushmeat, and of possible effects the trend might have on European longdistance migratory birds.
MIGRATORY BIRDS
According to the Convention on Migratory Species UNEP/CMS, migratory species are defined
as “the entire population or any geographically separate part of the population of any species or
lower taxon of wild animals, a significant proportion of whose members cyclically and
predictably cross one or more national jurisdictional boundaries” (http://www.csm.int/).
Of the known 9,856 bird species present on Earth, 1,855 are migratory. They take advantage of
seasonal resources breeding in one region and then, when food availability changes, spending the
non-breeding months in others regions. There are 181 nomadic species, whose migrations do not
follow regular directional and spatial patterns; 262 are marine and coastal birds, also known as
2
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
seabirds, whose routes cross the oceans or go from coast to coast; and 343 are altitudinal
migrants, moving seasonally between lower and higher elevations within the same region. The
largest group is made up of 1,593 migratory land- and waterbirds, representing 16% of the avian
species which populate the Antarctic, Indomalayan, Australasian, Nearctic, Neotropical,
Afrotropical and Palearctic geographic realms (Kirby et al. 2008; BirdLife International 2008).
Western Palearctic and Afro-Palearctic migratory birds (APM)
Most but not all the western Palearctic species spend their whole life cycle in Eurasia; a few
hundreds have their breeding grounds there, but spend the non-breeding season in Africa. Often
their African range is called the wintering range with clear reference to the European and north
Asian winter. But since the African continent spans across both austral and boreal hemispheres,
and different populations of the same migratory species may use both hemispheres during the
European winter, the term “non-breeding” is considered more accurate than wintering (Kirby et
al. 2008) and will be referred to in this paper hereafter. Land and water migratory birds can be
broadly divided into three groups:
1) Waterbirds, 162 species.
Birds such as geese, ducks, and swans Anatidiae, herons and egrets Ardeidae, and rails Rallidae,
are dependant on suitable wetlands for resting and feeding (i.e. staging or stop-over sites) where
they converge in large numbers, especially during migrations. They tend to follow well known
routes, using the same stop-over sites reliably, and the concept of flyway was originally ideated
taking in consideration waterfowls migratory routes (Kirby et al. 2008; Brouwer & Boere 2009).
2) Soaring birds, 67 species.
3
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Many raptors, such as eagles Accipitridae, are also forced to follow recognizable paths, just as
the previous group. These birds are unable to sustain large tracts of the long journey by just
flapping their wings. Instead, they rely on hot air columns which waft them to high altitudes,
from where they glide to the next. Such ascending currents, known as thermals, are found only
over land, so migrants are forced to avoid crossing the vast expanse of the Mediterranean Sea.
For this reason, they tend to follow leading lines—topographical features as Mountain chains or
coastlines—which ensure convenient thermals along the route and lead them to the shortest
water crossings. These crossings are called bottlenecks, where large numbers of soaring birds
converge, as it happens for waterbirds at wetlands. The major bottlenecks for APM soaring birds
are Gibraltar and Jbel Moussa in Morocco, the Strait of Messina in Sicily, Malta and the
Mediterranean islands, Cape Bon in Tunisia, the Bosporus and the Belen Pass in Turkey
(BirdLife International 2006; Kirby et al. 2008; Brouwer & Boere 2009).
3) Landbirds, 420 species.
This category is comprised mostly of passerine songbirds such as Old World warblers Sylviidae,
chats and Old World flycatchers Muscicapidae, and cuckoos Cuculidae. These birds can sustain
long active flights and are relatively more adaptable while migrating. Without being forced by
topographic features as in the previous groups, they traverse large obstacles like the
Mediterranean Sea and the Sahara desert on more direct trajectories, traveling on broad fronts.
Migration timings and patterns are species and population specific; for example, many songbirds
migrate at night and in the early hours of the day (Schmaljohann et al. 2007). Our overall
knowledge of landbirds’ migration, such as their site fidelity, food preferences during their
journey and movements in the African continent, is still very limited especially for the smaller
species, but there is mounting evidence that even these birds rely on specific staging areas. These
4
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
critical sites are numerous and often small, scattered along a very large front; for which, the
population sink is a relevant dynamic to consider. A sink habitat is usually defined as a lowquality area, where local mortality surpasses local reproductive success for a given species (With
and King 2001). Since no reproduction takes places directly on staging sites, but breeding
success also depends on them, the sink dynamic triggered at staging sites becomes apparent later,
when the birds return to their nesting grounds. If these key habitats are damaged or disturbed and
transformed into population sinks, unknowingly to the scientific community and without
intervention by conservationists, the condition of the whole migratory route is impaired. The vast
geographic range on which landbirds cyclically move requires the monitoring of many numerous
factors, and the implementation of a broad-scale, intercontinental protection policy to ensure
their favorable conservation status (Yohannes et al. 2007; Kirby et al. 2008; Brouwer & Boere
2009).
Amongst the western Palearctic birds breeding within the European Union (EU), 121
species are long-distance migrants. These birds embark on the long journey to reach their nonbreeding grounds south of the Sahara Desert; these are called Afro-Palearctic migratory (APM)
birds (Brooks & Shokellu Thompson 2001; Sanderson et al. 2006). Some of the long-distance
migratory species, subspecies or populations have adapted to the different seasonal resources
offered at particular latitudes, adopting a two-step or leap-frog migration. They may rest for up
to three months in the Sahel, or right after having crossed the Arabian deserts, and then continue
their journey southward. The emerging general pattern shows that populations which breed in the
Mediterranean area (e.g. Yellow Wagtail Montacilla flava iberiae, M.f. cinerecapilla and M.f.
feldegg) are the ones which travel less, wintering in North Africa, as short-distance migrants do,
or in the Sahel. Birds breeding in Central Europe (e.g. M. f. flava), spend the non-breeding
5
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
season in a vast area of the continent which spans from the Sahelian zone to central Africa.
While the northern breeders (e.g. M. f. thunbergi) spend the first part of the European winter in
the same territory of the Central European population, then move southward, taking advantage of
the food availability generated by the shifting rain seasons (Figure 1), and leave Southern-East
and Southern Africa for their breeding ranges
later than the other populations. The time
span of the migration period depends on the
geographic extension of the species range,
the availability and the use of resting-places,
and the number of birds migrating (BirdLife
International 2006; Bell 2007).
Figure 1: Timing and duration of rainfall in sub-Saharan
Africa (from Dodman & Diagana 2007)
The flyway concept
A flyway is the full range of the habitat used by a migratory bird: the breeding site, the nonbreeding site, and all the territories in/over which the birds pass and rest during the migration.
Boere and Strout (2006) define it as “The biological systems of migratory paths that directly link
sites and ecosystems in different countries and continents.”
Another definition can be all the geographic areas occupied by a population, species or
group during the year; the regions where they simply pass through and the ones where the birds
remain for a prolonged time, intended as a single unit. It is now generally accepted that to ensure
the conservation of any migratory species it is not sufficient to ensure its protection only in some
6
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Figure 2: Simplified diagram of the flyways of Afro-Palearctic migratory birds (from Fry et al. 1982-2004; LIFE 2007; BirdLife
International 2008; http://www.borntotravelcampaign.com/FlyWays/)
7
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
critical areas, as the breeding grounds or bottleneck/stop-over sites, but protection needs to be
ensured on the totality of its range/flyway.
There are three main flyways used by APM to reach their non-breeding ranges. Birds
starting their journey mainly in Eastern Europe and Western Russia follow the EastMediterranean flyway (SSE). It spans the East cost of the Mediterranean, the Jordan Rift Valley,
passes over the Sinai, the Nile Valley in Egypt and Sudan where it veers toward Central Sahel, or
merges into the Eastern African Flyway (which begins in the Nile Valley, runs through the Great
Rift Valley and down into east South Africa). The Mid-Mediterranean flyway (SSW) is used by
migrants that breed in Central Europe, which extends from Italy, Sicily, Malta, the Tunisian
Islands, enters the African Continent at Djebel El Haouaria, and then splits. One branch
continues southward toward the Sahel, the other southeast into the Eastern African Flyway. The
East Atlantic coastal flyway/SW Mediterranean, which includes the Strait of Gibraltar and
continues along the African west coast, is used by many coastal and waterbirds, and migrants
from western Europe (BirdLife International 2006a). As mentioned before, landbirds are not
forced to follow these flyways as soaring and waterbirds are, but some of their stop-overs are
located along them.
APM conservation status
In Europe there are various Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) for species or groups of
species with a formal Unfavorable Conservation Status and Single Species Action Plans (SSAP),
which are also active in some North African and East Mediterranean countries. The Aquatic
Warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola) and migratory raptors are covered by international MOUs
under the Bonn Convention. The Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina), Lesser Kestrel (Falco
8
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
naumanni), Red-footed Falcon (Falco vespertinus), Eleonora’s Falcon (Falco eleonorae),
Corncrake (Crex crex), Roseate Tern (Sterna dougalii), European Roller (Coracias garrulus) and
the Aquatic Warbler are considered priority interests for the EU, as agreed by the Ornis
Committee, and covered by appropriate SSAPs, funded by LIFE, the financial instrument of the
Council of Europe.
Figure 3: Extent and distribution of sub-Saharan rangelands (from Homewood 2004; Fry et al. 1982-2004)
Unfortunately, these efforts cover only a minimal percentage of the declining species (see
APPENDIX I). Among all western Palearctic birds, long-distance APMs are the ones which are
9
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
faring worst. About 54% of them, which is 48 species out of 121, have shown consistent
negative trends for the period 1970-2000, especially small insectivore and omnivore landbirds
which spend the non-breeding season in dry open environments (i.e. hyperarid, arid, semi-arid
and dry sub-humid areas) of sub-Saharan rangelands, occurring in the Sahel, East and Southern
Africa (Figure 3). Most of these species do not officially meet the criteria required to be added to
the IUCN Red List, notwithstanding their negative population trends, since:
“The species have an extremely large range, and hence do not approach the thresholds
for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with
a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small
number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears
to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds
for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three
generations). The population size is very large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for
Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing
decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population
structure).”
(from BirdLife International Species Data
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=2498&m
=0)
Only about 8% of APM landbirds are currently classified as Threatened or Nearly
Threatened. Some scientists, like Kirby et al. (2008), caution that many more may unknowingly
already meet the IUCN Red List criteria, given the difficulty of assessing declines on populations
dispersed over vast geographical ranges. The Sahel alone, which is the first critical staging site
10
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
after crossing the Sahara when flying south and the non-breeding range of many birds, stretches
from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the Red Sea in the east, spanning over about 1.6 billion
hectares and ten African countries. The sustained declines do not show any positive relation to
breeding habitats or phylogeny, since they do not affect residents and short-distance migrants
which share the same breeding grounds, and occur among AMP of different orders and families.
The causes for such declines are not completely understood, but some have already been
identified (BirdLife International 2004; Sanderson et al. 2006, Kirby et al. 2008;
http://www.iucnredlist.org/).
PRINCIPAL CAUSES FOR APM DECLINES
Most papers and reports on APMs denounce the lack of scientific data and the poor
understanding of migrant’s ecology and population dynamics in their sub-Saharan ranges,
especially for those species which move on a broad front. They urge more research on the nonbreeding grounds in the African continent to gather the information necessary to better
understand the reasons behind such declines, discover and prevent new threats, and improve
conservation (Brooks & Shokellu Thompson 2001; Sanderson et al. 2006; Muchai et al. 2007;
Norris & Marra 2007; Wisz et al. 2007; Kirby et al. 2008).
These birds have low recapture rates, thus ring recovery, and cannot be observed with
Global Positioning System (GPS) wildlife tracking, since their diminutive size prohibits the
application of even the smallest GPS device. The recent technique of studying feather stableisotope profiles, where no recapturing of the same bird is required, is a promising tool to improve
our knowledge of small APMs (Yohannes et al. 2007). While more research is needed, the
11
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
following factors have already been identified as drivers of current declines, many of them
having anthropogenic origins.
EU Common Agricultural Policy and Agri-environment Regulation
The increase of agro-environments, especially intensive ones, driven by the constantly growing
demand for food by our rising human population is one of the primary threats to birds. Land
which has been transformed for intensive agriculture is inhospitable to most species due to the
loss of roosting and breeding places, limited food availability and the negative impact of
pesticides and other chemicals used for crop protection and production. Similarly, overgrazing
negatively affects bird populations, altering the vegetative cover and reducing general food
availability altogether. These phenomena have been extensively studied in Europe (BirdLife
International 2004; Kirby et al. 2008). The EU Common Agricultural Policy, which led to a
widespread agricultural intensification in the 1970s, caused a dramatic reduction among birds
that thrived within the mosaic of land previously cultivated with extensive regimes. In the United
Kingdom and the Netherlands alone, during the past 35 years of agricultural development,
farmland associated birds have plummeted to less than 60% of their original numbers (Berendse
et al. 2004).
In 1992 the Agri-environment Regulation (2078/92) was passed with the intention of
stopping and reversing these negative trends by implementing purportedly sustainable agroenvironmental schemes. Such schemes have shown limited benefits thus far, since birds that are
specialist breeders on farmland do not seem to favor the lands enrolled in these schemes. Even
when they do, and a higher hatchling survival rate is observed, the fledglings often disperse into
neighboring land not managed according to the same principles. This results in high juvenile
12
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
mortality, limited reproductive success, and impaired recruitment. Further, the highest mortality
rates are still recorded during long migrations when the birds leave the boundaries of the
sustainable agro-environmental schemes (Berendse et al. 2004).
Agricultural development in Africa: desertification, chemicals, and food
The phenomenon of agricultural intensification concerns areas of sub-Saharan rangelands, as
well, and it is a threat bound to increase in the near future due to demographic trends. According
to the projections of the United Nations, the population of most African countries within subSaharan rangelands, like Niger, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi, will double by
2040 (UNPD 2008). The simple transition from a natural state to agricultural intensification such
as overcultivation and overgrazing, the implementation of inappropriate practices such as the
cultivation of marginal and easily eroded land, and the unsafe abuse of chemicals to boost crop
production, have been identified as having negative impacts on APM (Sinclair et al. 2002;
Darkoh 2003; Cresswell et al. 2007; Mwenja 2008; Brouwer & Boere 2009).
The combined effects of droughts, inappropriate cultivation and irrigation have caused
the desertification of much of the Sahel, a key staging site for APMs. The southward extension
of the Sahara Desert means that more birds do not have enough energy to survive the longer
journey across the desert (Stoate et al.1995; Jones et al. 1996; Cresswell et al. 2007). Large
stretches of the remaining area, the non-breeding grounds of many species, are now inhospitable
as a result of the substantial use of chemicals. In the past 30 years, during which sub-Saharan
agriculture increased only of 4%, the use of fertilizers increased 300%, and the importation of
pesticides increased 500% (FAOSTAT 2009).
13
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Kenya is an important stop-over country on the Eastern African flyway and the nonbreeding range of many APM species. Intensive horticulture destined for international
exportation is the fastest-growing sector of the Kenyan economy, expanding in the Rift Valley
for the production of vegetables and especially cut flowers, for which larger quantities of
chemicals are employed (FAO 2002; see http://www.kenyaflowercouncil.org/). Various studies
have been conducted on the effects of agriculture on resident Afrotropical birds in East and
Southern Africa, indicating a strong correspondence between human density and biodiversity
loss. The constant encroachment of agriculture on grassland in sub-Saharan Africa has caused
the decline of some grassland-specific species, such as the Sharpe’s Longclaw (Macronyx
sharpei). For example, on the Kinangop Plateau in the Nyandarua district of Central Kenya,
situated between the Aberdare Mountains and the Rift Valley at an altitude of ca. 2,500 meters
and along the major East African flyway, the local Kikuyu population is increasing and the
native grasslands are being progressively converted to agriculture, or used as pastures and
overgrazed by livestock (Muchai et al. 2002; Ndang’ang’a et al 2002; Muchai et al. 2007).
Similar results are recorded in the agricultural areas of the Kilimanjaro region in
Tanzania (Soini 2006). In Southern Africa, the combined pressures of unregulated hunting and
agriculture have caused the decline and the local extirpation of Helmeted Guineafowl (Numida
meleagris) a common game species (Pero & Crowe 1996; Ratcliff & Crowe 2001). The areas
impacted by these declines are the non-breeding grounds of APM, as the Common Quail, whose
populations are depleted, and the Nearly Threatened Corncrake, a species of global concern.
Even the transformation to non-technologically advanced agriculture, without the use of
chemicals, negatively impacts avifauna’s diversity and density. The comparative study by
Sinclair et al. (2002), finds a 20 to 50% reduction of the insects, and only 10% of the original
14
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
population of tree-feeders birds, 30% of ground-feeders and 65% of shrub-feeders in an area
converted to subsistence agriculture from the contiguous protected savannah of the Serengeti.
The disappearance of the original plant community creates an inhospitable environment,
especially for small insectivores that feed in the grass layer, such as APM pipits Montacillidae
and warblers Sylviidae, and those which rely on sparse native trees to ambush their prey, such as
APM shrikes Laniidae.
Environmental alteration due to development, such as large scale infrastructure in the
African continent is presently only a minor threat. Similarly, new artificial obstacles, such as
wind turbines, power lines and antennae are still a small factor here, but which can have
important consequences if misplaced in the vicinity of bottleneck sites around the Mediterranean,
or along one of the African flyways (Brouwer & Boere 2009).
Climate change
Global warming is another cause for APM declines. Some of these declines are the result of the
aforementioned expansion of the Sahara Desert and the sahelianization of large portions of the
south/southeastern sudanian region of the Sahel, which is not crossed by all declining species
(Sanderson et al. 2006). Additional impact of climate change is evidenced by the fact that milder
winter temperatures in the breeding grounds favor short distance migrant and resident
populations. Birds that reach the breeding grounds early can choose better nesting sites, and have
a higher reproductive success. Responding to environmental clues, short-distance migrants are
able to anticipate their return to the breeding grounds and have first choice of their territory
(Forchhammer et al. 2002), while resident species show higher winter survival rates (Lemoine &
Böhning-Gaese 2003), thus both categories are at a competitive advantage versus
15
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
intercontinental long-distance migrants. In addition, temperature and precipitation on nonbreeding grounds are environmental clues for the onset of the APM spring migration, which is
now delayed. They not only arrive in Europe later, but their departure for the autumn migration
is only minimally delayed, for the different impact of climate change in the northern hemisphere.
Thus, APMs may not have the time to build enough fat reserves and their fledglings may be too
immature for the long journey (Gordo et al. 2004).
The rising mean temperatures are slowly altering most ecosystems. This is particularly
worrisome for trans-Saharan migrants, whose movements in the African continent are poorly
known, and may see some key staging sites disappear. It has also been recently demonstrated
that long-distance migratory birds have smaller brains, more specialized feeding requirements
(e.g. cannot adjust their diets to diverse food resources) and are less flexible then their resident
phylogenic counterparts. They are forced to migrate to avoid winter starvation. Their overall
behavioral inflexibility puts them at a disadvantage to face the current climatic and
environmental trends (Sol et al. 2005; Schultz et al. 2005).
Premigratory fattening and hunting in the Mediterranean regions
Long migrations are an enormous endeavor, especially for small birds that cross the vastness of
the Mediterranean Sea or the Sahara Desert. To succeed, they undergo various physiological and
behavioral adjustments prior and during the migration. Their body fat reserves increase to
provide enough fuel, since they will be unable to feed for long periods of time. In addition, the
lean mass of the flight muscles, such as the large pectorals, increases proportionately to sustain
the heavier weight and the lengthy continuous effort (Bairlein 1985). Their foraging behavior
also is altered. The birds need to dedicate more time to feeding but, being forced to find enough
16
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
food in a short period of time before departure, their flight distance from danger shortens
(Bednekoff & Houston 1994). Finally, to achieve reproductive success, they need to arrive back
on their breeding grounds with enough energy reserves (Drent & Daan 1980), thus the
premigratory fattening may be augmented in Africa (Jones et al. 1996). When these
physiological and behavioral characteristics of migrants are combined with the fact that they
travel in large numbers, at predictable times of the year, experience fatigue upon arrival and are
easier and more nutritious prey than resident birds, it is no wonder that man has exploited such
bounty for millennia.
The EU fully recognizes the sustainable hunting of wild birds as a legitimate use of
natural resources, as addressed in Article 10 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and by
the Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (United Nations 1993, p.150; see
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/index_en.htm#huntinggui
de). Nevertheless, unregulated seasonal hunting at bottlenecks and staging sites (i.e. islands,
wetlands, oases, etc. on the migratory route) and along the coasts of the Mediterranean is another
major threat to APMs. In the Mediterranean region, hunting has deep cultural roots, and it was
once important for the subsistence of large numbers of poor people. Today, notwithstanding the
limited of data available on hunting in the south/southeastern part of this region (Sanderson et al.
2006; BirdLife 2006, 2007; Kirby et al. 2008; Brouwer & Boere 2009), the impact of subsistence
hunting is considered only marginal and recreational hunting appears to be the most common
hunting form for waterfowl and large migratory birds (BirdLife International 2006b).
The use of modern technology, the combined impact of leisure hunting in some countries
with unclear or un-enforced legislation (e.g., Lebanon, Malta), and the incomplete information
on wildlife population and mortality essential to calculate equitable bag limits, have led to gross
17
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
over-harvests. It is estimated that a total of one half to a billion migratory birds are shot in the
Mediterranean countries every year, by approximately 10 million hunters. Shooting is the most
common technique; however nets, snares, lime sticks, traps, decoys, and poison are also used.
With increasing human population trends, hunting pressure on resident birds is likely to increase,
and when the resident game population becomes less available, the pressure on migratory birds
intensifies (Brouwer & Boere 2009). Some species such as the Common Quail, European Turtledove (Steptopelia turtur) and many warblers, are exposed to illegal gourmandizing. They are
hunted in South-east and Central Europe and traded to Italy, France and Malta where they are
consumed as delicacies (TRAFFIC 2008).
In compliance with the Bird Directive, in 2004 the Council of Europe with the assistance
of the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement Secretariat (AEWA), launched the Sustainable
Hunting Project Workshop (LIFE 04 TCY/INT/000054), whose stakeholders are Algeria, Egypt,
Jordan, Morocco, Palestine, Tunisia and Syria, and involves local governments and international
and national NGOs within the Mediterranean area (BirdLife International 2006).
The aforementioned subsistence hunting is a less studied phenomenon. It is still recorded
in Egypt for ca. 500 families on the North Sinai, which practice the traditional autumn mist
netting of Common Quails, part of which are traded, and in the Nile Delta, where quails and
songbirds are trapped by farmers and fishermen. The capture of songbirds is also common in the
oases of the Western Egyptian Desert, especially during the spring migration and in Syria. In
rural Lebanon, small bird trapping for consumption is carried out by women in the less affluent
parts of the country (BirdLife International 2006a).
So far, climate change, agricultural development both in Europe and in Africa, and
hunting in the Mediterranean area are considered the main drivers of APM declines. In the
18
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
following section is a concise presentation of the most relevant international existing agreements
to ensure protection for these long-distance migrants.
CONSERVATION TOOLS FOR APM
Besides the Ramsar Convention, which promotes the conservation and wise use of
wetlands of international importance around the world and maintains a list of almost 1847 such
sites (http://www.ramsar.org/), and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of wild fauna and flora (CITES), which aims to ensure the sustainable international trade of
wildlife around the globe, signed by most governments and covers about 33,000 species of plants
and animals (http://www.cites.org/), there are a number of international treaties, agreements and
nationally protected areas for the conservation of APM. The following is a concise presentation
of the most relevant to APM landbirds.
The Bern, Bonn and Rio Conventions
In the multifaceted European political reality, wildlife conservation is a challenging task. Fortynine European countries are signatories of the European Union (EU). The European Commission
is the executive branch of the EU, and is constituted of nearly 40 Directorates-General (DG), one
of which is the DG for the Environment. Its objectives are to protect, preserve and improve the
environment and biodiversity. This is achieved by proposing policies, controlling Member
States’ compliance with EU environmental law, investigating complaints and taking legal action
when needed (EC, 2009a).
The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, the Bern
Convention of 1973 (it came into force in 1982) promotes the protection of more than 1000
19
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
animal species and habitats across the EU signatories, which require international effort for
effective conservation due to their trans-boundary occurrence. By means of different Annexes,
the Convention offers a hierarchy of protected species and hunting and capturing techniques
which are forbidden within the signatory countries of the EU.
Its Annexes are organized as follows:
•
Annex I enumerates strictly protected habitats and species
•
Annex II enumerates habitats and species of particular interest
•
Annex III enumerates the criteria to choose habitats and species in App. I & II
•
Annex IV enumerates the species with a special level of protection
•
Annex V enumerates the species which need a management plan to be harvested in nature
•
Annex VI enumerates forbidden hunting practices.
Non-EU countries, Tunisia and Morocco, are formal observers of this convention
(http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=104&CM=8&DF=9/23/20
08&CL=ENG).
The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), also called the Bonn Convention, referring
to the place where it was signed in 1979, was born from the challenge of protecting fauna whose
range encompasses cyclically international frontiers and thus different jurisdictions. This global
treaty gathered different nations together to write species’ specific regulations apt to secure the
conservation of all the species listed in Appendix I, migratory species threatened with extinction,
and the sustainable use of those in Appendix II, migratory species which benefit from
international cooperation. At the last Conference of the Parties, in December 2008, CMS
launched an “open-ended working group” on global bird flyways, whose aim is to suggest the
future actions on this issue by CMS (http://www.csm.int/).
20
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
In 2001 all the EC Member States adopted the UN Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD). This international treaty was signed by 150 governments in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, for
the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of the genetic resources. It aims to halt biodiversity
loss in Europe, by 2010. The EU Biodiversity Action Plan was finalized in 2006. But the Action
Plan Report of 2008 announced that the EU is far from meeting its target in 2010 and major
efforts are required just to get close to the established goal (http://www.cbd.int/convention/; EC
2009b).
The African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Twenty-eight of the 53 African countries are signatories to this Treaty whose fundamental
principle, expressed in the Article II is "the Contracting States shall undertake to adopt the
measures necessary to ensure conservation, utilization and development of soil, water, floral and
faunal resources in accordance with scientific principles and with due regard to the best
interests of the people" (http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/texts/african.conv.conserva.1969.html).
Unfortunately, APMs whose movement and presence are scarcely known in most African
countries, already plagued by more pressing wars, famines, political instabilities, etc, are
understandably a low priority.
The African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA)
AEWA was enacted in 1999 and focuses on 23 families, 255 species and 517 populations of
Palearctic migratory birds ecologically dependent on wetlands. It was signed by 119 European,
Asiatic and African countries, including the northernmost tip of Canada. A comprehensive
Action Plan describes the various conservation efforts required by the Parties to the Agreement.
21
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
These efforts range from education, research and monitoring, to species and habitat conservation,
and management of human interactions. It is currently the largest agreement under the CMS for
number of protected species and the geographic area covered which implements the flyway
approach for migratory bird protection (http://www.unep-aewa.org/). The wetlands covered by
this agreement are important staging sites of many AMP landbirds, such as some warblers.
The EU Bird and Habitat Directives, Natura 2000 and the Emerald Network
The Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (EU Birds Directive)
provides the minimum legal requirements and standards that all Member States must comply
with for the protection of Western Palearctic birds in Europe, as part of the implementation of
the Bern Convention.
Hunting, as one of the major interactions of humans with birds, has particular importance
within the Directive. Hunting and falconry are regulated by Articles 7 and 8. While management
plans for all game species listed in Appendix II are in process of completion, hunting has stirred
many controversies between conservationists and hunting lobbyists. The EU formally recognizes
its legitimacy as a form of sustainable use and for its cultural value, which provides social and
environmental benefits. In 2001, the Sustainable Hunting Initiative started a new dialogue
between regulating bodies and the NGOs. It was followed in 2004 by the Sustainable Hunting
Agreement, signed by BirdLife International and the Federation of Associations for Hunting and
Conservation of the EU. In 2007, the guidance document on hunting was updated. Annex II
enumerates the huntable species within the EU, and Annex III specifies for which huntable
species trade is allowed. This has been one of the main efforts of the Directive.
22
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Each Member State has to select Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for all migratory birds
and the 192 avian species and habitats listed in Annex I of the Bern Convention, with a particular
attention to wetlands (Article 4). In 1993, the development of Action Plans and Memoranda of
Understandings began for endangered or vulnerable species of global concern, a priority for EU.
Governmental agencies, NGOs and individual scientists collaborated on it. Finally, Article 10
encourages relevant research
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index-en.htm).
The Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural
Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (EU Habitat Directive) provides the framework for the
protection of biodiversity in Europe through the conservation of natural habitats and of its wild
fauna and flora, as part of the implementation of the Bern Convention in the EU. The EU
territory has been divided into nine different bioregions (e.g. Alpine, Atlantic, Black Sea, Boreal,
Continental, Macaronesian, Mediterranean, Pannonian and Steppic) to facilitate the management
and conservation of similar sites occurring in different countries. Each Member State is required
to propose a national list of Sites of Community Importance (SICs). After evaluation and
approval by the EC, such sites become Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), which form a
network of protected areas within the EU. The Directive’s Annexes list the habitats that require
the designation of SACs in Annex I; the fauna and flora species that require the designation of a
SAC in Annex II; the Criteria for SACs are reported in Annex III; Annex IV lists all the
protected fauna and flora, while Annex V identifies the partly protected fauna and flora species.
The EU Habitat Directive introduced for the first time the precautionary principle,
permitting projects’ implementation only if no adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC was
ascertained. Exceptions are allowed in extreme cases, for which compensation actions are
23
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
compulsory. The same precautionary and compensatory principles apply also to SPAs
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index-en.htm).
With these two Directives, the EU delivers its obligations to international Conventions
such as Ramsar, Bonn, Bern and CBD. Together, the SPAs and SACs form the Pan-European
Ecological Network and Natura 2000, the ecological network which covers almost one fifth of
the EU territory. The scope of the Natura 2000 is to preserve all the most biodiverse and unique
European environments. The ecological connectivity is thus achieved with the protection of core
areas, flyways, buffer zones, corridors and stepping stones within the Member States, for the
implementation of Article 3 of the EU Bird Directive and Article 10 of the Habitat Directive on
landscape connectivity.
To protect species with international and/or intercontinental ranges, the ecological
network expands to some non-EU European countries (e.g. Norway) and parts of North and
Northwest Africa (i.e., Tunisia, Morocco, Senegal and Burkina Faso as Contracting Parties;
Algeria, Cape Verde and Mauritania as observers) in what is called the Emerald Network. SAPs
and the SACs become Areas of Special Conservation Interest (ASCI). The Emerald Network is
organized similarly to Natura 2000, with the main difference being that it is not legally binding
for its member countries (WWF 2009). Due to the limited coverage of the African continent, the
Emerald Network can protect only short distance migrants, mainly waterbirds already covered by
other conventions and agreements, such as Ramsar, AEWA, etc. (Council of Europe 2005,
2007).
The ecological network approach of Natura 2000 and the Emerald Network has been very
successful amongst the European governmental bodies since it simplifies the work of landscape
planners and gives politicians an active role in the conservation effort, with consequential
24
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
positive publicity. The straightforward concepts of core areas, corridors and buffers are very
attractive, especially in densely populated countries with different national and regional
administrative legislations, but their effectiveness as conservation tools have yet to be proven. In
this respect, the warnings of Boitani et al. (2007) are of the foremost importance. They point out
the scientific weaknesses of the ecological network approach, and the danger of entrusting
biodiversity conservation to professionals with no, or little, ecological backgrounds (i.e.,
landscape planners and politicians). They stress the necessity of tackling conservation,
addressing the full complexity of ecosystems, enforcing specific codes of conduct and
implementing adaptive management to the ever-evolving landscape and its wildlife.
The Important Bird Areas (IBAs)
IBAs are sites of global importance for biodiversity conservation in general, and bird
conservation in particular. The IBA program was triggered by the requirement of the Bird
Directive to identify SAPs. The sites are designated nationally according to four standardized,
quantitatively- and scientifically-defendable criteria. These are the presence of: globally
threatened species, restricted range species, biome-restricted species, or major congregations of
individuals (BirdLife 2004, 2005).
The program is articulated in four phases:
“1 – Startup – Consultation, background context assessment, stakeholder analysis and
establishment of national partnerships and agreements; setting up a suitable institutional
framework, which usually involves obtaining the co-operation of non-BirdLife institutions such
as government agencies, development NGOs, universities, etc. Agreeing national objectives;
25
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
2 – Identification/survey – A process of identifying potential IBA sites, data collection, field
surveys, confirmation of these sites as IBAs, production of an IBA inventory and population of a
database;
3 – Action planning – Setting priorities and implementing advocacy, monitoring and action for
key sites;
4 – Fully-developed national site conservation program – Establishing a sustainable
management cycle in which a program of action, monitoring and advocacy for the network of
national IBAs is well-established, with security of future funding.” (from BirdLife International
2005)
The IBA Program in Africa began in 1993 and covers now ca. 7% of the continent with
1,230 sites (Buchanan et al. 2009). Nearly 57% of the IBAs were already in areas covered by
national or international formal protection at the launch of the program, while more than 50 IBAs
have been granted legal protection since its launch. It has been speculated that most of the
unprotected IBAs are located in areas presently unthreatened by direct human disturbance
(Arinaitwe et al 2007). However, this affirmation might relate only to threats such as
development or conversion to agriculture, not subsistence hunting. Many African IBAs are
located in dry lands: for example in the Sahel biome there are 38, while an additional 73 are
situated in the Somali-Maasai biome in East Africa
(http://www.BirdLife.org/action/change/desertification/index.html).
The effort of concentrating protection on specific sites known to host large numbers of
specimens and taking marginal care of the overall matrix has limited effectiveness for almost
55% of the migratory birds, which rarely congregate in great numbers and are instead highly
dispersed on a broad front. For these species, a wider form of protection, which takes care of the
26
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
broader landscape with a multidisciplinary approach, is the only effective means of conservation
(Boitani et al. 2007; Kirby et al. 2008). Incidentally, the same approach is also required for most
charismatic African fauna as the immense migratory herds of herbivores, ensuring wildlife
movement in the erratic and constantly fluctuating environment of the sub-Saharan rangelands
(Homewood 2004). Conversely, a serious drawback of some site specific conservation programs
is called the “honey pot effect.” This refers to the drawing of immigrants to project areas in the
hope of job opportunities, resulting in increased disturbance and a reduction in conservation
efficacy (Brooks & Shokellu Thompson 2001).
Finally, the effectiveness of IBAs for overall biodiversity conservation is a controversial
issue in which Brooks et al. (2001) found 92% of amphibians and snakes and 97% of mammals
endemic to the region thriving in the 228 protected IBAs of East Africa. Others studies, like the
one of Lawton et al. (1998), found no correlation to the success of animals other than birds in
other locations. The major threats to these areas and the birds they protect are the result of habitat
destruction due to agriculture and deforestation, and the increasing human population
disturbance. Human density is generally the same both inside and within the buffer areas of the
IBAs, yet this density is three times above the average 27 individuals per square kilometer in the
rest of sub-Saharan Africa. It is relevant to note that among the many threats to African IBAs
reported in the formal assessment by Buchanan et al. (2009), the only reference to the threat of
illegal bushmeat is “unspecified unsustainable exploitation”. This highlights the lack of
involvement of the European Community south of North Africa and its dismissal of the overhunting potentially occurring in the area.
27
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
THE BUSHMEAT PHENOMENON IN THE AFRICAN RANGELANDS
Bushmeat—from the West African French definition viande de brousse—is the meat of wild
animals killed for food. They are often illegally hunted and consumed directly by the family of
the hunter, and/or become the object of a mostly illegal and often unsustainable food trade which
extends well beyond national and continental borders (Barnett 2000; anon. 2008; Nasi et al.
2008; Honan 2009; Opyene & Eves 2009). Its occurrence rose to international attention in the
tropical forests, where it has caused widespread regional eradications and extinctions of species
with low reproductive rates. The altered food-web, with the elimination of key seed-dispersers
(e.g. most frugivore animals, the African forest elephant Loxodonta cyclotis, etc), is affecting
plant recruitment, thus forests’ species composition and structure (Eves & Bakarr 2001; Moore
2001; Nasi et al. 2008). The phenomenon of forest degeneration due to bushmeat impact has
been documented in various tropical regions, such as in Central and South America (Wright
2005; Nuñez-Iturri & Howe 2007; Wright et al. 2007).
The crisis is driven by the absence and/or poor implementation of effective
socioeconomic and environmental policies, international exploitation, poverty and human
population increases (Nasi et al. 2008; Opyene & Eves 2009) as a result of inefficiently planned
medical and social care, both at international and national levels.
In the more productive African Rangelands, the factors influencing are similar. Low
density hunter/gatherer societies have always relied on wildlife for their subsistence and, in the
past, this was not perceived as a conservation issue. As a result of rising human population
accompanied by widespread poverty and food insecurity, groups other than just traditional
hunters are forced to exploit wildlife for mere subsistence, or as a source of income (Gelman
2009; Mwenja & Kariuki 2009; Opyene & Eves 2009). In many agro-pastoralist and pastoralist
28
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
tribes, like the Chewa in Malawi and the Samburu in Kenya, head of livestock are a capital and
cultural asset, a symbol of wealth, especially cattle and camel (Sato1997; Loibooki et al. 2002).
Livestock are rarely slaughtered for consumption, and bushmeat is seen as a viable and
inexpensive alternative, preferred for its taste and nutritional value. Bushmeat, once a sustainable
use of a natural resource by a smaller pool of people, has now transformed in a short-term,
unsustainable palliative to poverty and hunger, due to the sheer increase in demand (MilnerGullanda & Bennett 2003). In some areas it is the main or only source of protein, but its
unregulated overexploitation can undermine ecosystem services in the future (Milner-Gullanda
& Bennett 2003; Amum & Eves 2009; Gelman 2009; Okello & Eves 2009; Opyene & Eves
2009).
Within different scenarios, its use is pervasive in both urban and rural areas, with high or
low human densities, large or impaired wildlife resource bases, in and outside of protected areas,
and more often is unrelated to historic tribal customs (Ntiamoa-Baidu 1997; Barnett 2000;
Loibooki et al. 2002; Caro & Andimile 2009; Gelman 2009). Bushmeat hunting is more overt
during the dry season, when it is easier to locate game by the waterholes, and during wild
herbivore migrations. A stronger reliance on bushmeat is observed at times of hardship, such as
famine, war, drought, and for displaced refugees (Barnett 2000; Loibooki et al. 2002; Jambiya et
al. 2007; Holmern et al. 2007; Mwenja & Eves 2009).
East and Southern Africa
The trade of bushmeat is an integral part of the struggling economies of many East and Southern
African countries (Amum & Eves 2009; Damalu & Eves 2009; Okello & Eves 2009). This is
prevalent in countries with a depleted wildlife resources base because the local population does
29
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
not have easy access to wild animals for their own hunting purposes. In these instances,
neighboring countries with rich wildlife stocks act as sources. Trade as a source of income
appears to be more common in Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi and Tanzania; while in Kenya,
Zimbabwe and Botswana the mere subsistence use of bushmeat is prevalent. Nonetheless, poor
subsistence farmers, such as in the Kilimanjaro region in Tanzania or in the Kitui district of
Kenya, sell surplus bushmeat to generate income after their own families have been fed (Barnett
2000; Nielsen 2006).
Very little information has been gathered on bushmeat use in Ethiopia, a largely rural
country where struggling subsistence agriculture is still the most common activity (Degu 2007).
Interestingly, southwest Ethiopia is a less known international destination for hunting safaris (see
http://www.africahunting.com/hunting_ ethiopia.html; http://www.hunt-africa.com/ethiopiahunting-overview.php), with surprisingly rich wildlife stocks; and its central highlands are the
non breeding range of some declining APMs (Fry et al 1982-2004: Engerman & Evangelista
2006). Most of the information available on Sudan concerns the southern area of the country
(Amum & Eves 2009; Seme & Eves 2009; Thon Aleu 2009); while it appears that little research
has been published on its northern Nile valley, plagued by decades of civil unrest. Like Ethiopia,
Sudan is part of the important Eastern African flyway, and the non-breeding ground of some
decreasing APMs (Fry et al. 1982-2004; Sanderson et al. 2006).
The TRAFFIC study edited by Barnett (2000) reports that bushmeat trade in some
countries has accounted for the single largest economic revenue generated by wildlife, as in
Tanzania where it was estimated at 50 million USD. Conversely, in Malawi, bushmeat accounts
for the largest national supply of meat. Surprisingly, this same study revealed that small animals,
weighing less than five kilograms, including rodents, insects and birds were a significant part,
30
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
41.7%, of all traded and consumed bushmeat in East and Southern Africa. The frequent
consumption of micro-fauna highlights the appreciation for the high nutritional value of these
protein rich sources, underlines the constant bushmeat demand and the decline in availability of
some large prey species (Barnett 2000, pages 25-26; Hoffman 2008). This constant demand is
undermining local taboos and customs, enlarging the spectrum of hunted species, the age and
gender of hunters and traders, and progressively expanding the hunting season, not leaving
enough time for wildlife to recover (Barnett 2000; Andimile & Eves 2009; Opyene & Eves
2009).
Overhunting pressure for bushmeat negatively impacts wildlife. This is obvious in some
critical areas such as the Serengeti (Barnett 2000; Loibooki et al. 2002; Holmern et al. 2007;
Caro & Andimile 2009; Opyene & Eves 2009; but see Mduma et al. 1999; Homewood 2004). In
addition to the impact of bushmeat, some of the largest wildlife declines, such as the 50%
decrease recorded in Kenya in the past three decades (Homewood 2004; Mwenja & Eves 2009),
is also attributed to land use change and human encroachment into the rangelands. Fencing
hampers the herds’ movement and disrupts the grassland mosaic vital to the survival of
migratory herds and most African rangeland species (Barnett 2000; Homewood 2004; Okello &
Kiringe 2004).
The use of bushmeat usually accompanies human encroachment for cultural and
socioeconomic reasons (Barnett 2000; Loibooki et al. 2002; Caro & Andimile 2009; Mwenja &
Eves 2009). Although the bushmeat phenomenon varies from area to area, with local availability
and culture, generally smaller birds are traded less frequently than mammals. Still, birds can
contribute substantially to food security. In some regions, when mammal prey is no longer easily
available, birds can become the largest component of consumed bushmeat (Barnett 2000;
31
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Nielsen 2006). In some circumstances the price paid for birds, as the traditional slit stick of small
birds called mpani in Malawi, can actually be higher than top grade beef or other domestic meat
(Barnett 2000).
Sahel
The combined action of: 1) climatic changes, long droughts and progressive desertification; 2)
anthropogenic causes such as the expansion of intensive agriculture to meet the food demands of
increasing human populations, competition by the rising livestock densities due to improved
veterinary care and the relatively wetter conditions after the Great Drought of the mid 1960s, and
hunting, have decimated the Sahelian wild ungulates and large birds. They are now reduced to
sparse remnant populations (Wickens 1997; Wittig et al. 2007).
Here, wildlife has also been exposed to over-hunting by Saudi Arabian aristocracy, which
has been expanding its hunting grounds westward in the past decades, after having exterminated
their quarry in North-East Africa (Newby 1990; Cloudsley-Thompson 1992).
Birds become an important source of protein in areas where wild ungulates are scarce,
with the larger species favored, if available (Thiollay 2006a, 2006b). Hunting has already caused
the extinction or serious decline of many populations of Ostrich (Struthio camelus) and game
birds such as guineafowls Numididae and bustards Otididae in most of Burkina Faso, Mali,
Niger and other areas west of Chad where once they were abundant. Some of these birds do not
meet the IUCN Red List criteria yet because they have very large ranges with many populations
and/or subspecies. When they become scarce an increased hunting pressure targets small birds.
Quantitative data on resident and migratory birds are still limited here as in most of the African
continent (Mackworth-Praed & Grant 1957; Fry et al. 1982-2004; Youth 2002; Thiollay 2006a,
32
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
2006b; Magige et al. 2009; http://www.BirdLife.org/index.html). While information on
desertification and sahelianization, pastoralism, agriculture and other socioeconomic issues in the
Sudano-Sahelian countries is relatively plentiful, scant data has been gathered on the extent of
bushmeat use and small bird hunting there, a critical area for most APMs (Jones et al. 1996, Fry
et al. 1982-2004).
DISCUSSION
Bird hunting in sub-Saharan Africa may be more habitual than currently believed
In many countries of the Middle East, North Africa and in most of the oases of the Sahara (e.g.
Tunisia, Egypt), capturing small birds is a common occurrence, especially among boys (BirdLife
International 2006). The prey are either lucratively sold as pets at the bird market or end up on
the family table. Different techniques are used and various species are targeted, but one
characteristic is common in this immense geographic area: the skill is praised and regarded as a
desirable ability and is encouraged by the family. Being a good bird-catcher is a positive quality
for young boys (BirdLife International 2006a) and echoes of such customs are still seen in
Southern Europe, were it has been outlawed for decades.
Notwithstanding a scarcity of data on the subject, young boys are also hunting small birds
south of the Sahara. Among most hunter-gatherer people in East and Southern Africa, such as the
Ikoma, Natta and Kuria, pursuing large game such as wild ungulates and Ostrich (Struthio
camelus) is traditionally reserved for men. Before the passage from childhood to adulthood, boys
practice on small birds (Magige et al. 2009). However, in areas depleted of resident wildlife,
where bushmeat hunters can only target medium and large migratory ungulates seasonally, adult
men also resort to bird hunting (Loibooki et al. 2002; Magige et al. 2009). Furthermore, in many
33
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
ethnic groups, small prey such as rodents, insects and birds are the only animals whose hunting
and trade are traditionally open to women (Barnett 2000). Surprisingly, amid pastoralist
communities such as the Kikuyu and Maasai, which are not typically associated with the
consumptive use of wildlife, small bird hunting is a common activity for young
shepherds/herders, even if large grassland species such as the Ostrich (Struthio camelus) are
often ignored (Magige et al. 2009).
Milk-subsistence pastoralism is fairly common in East Africa; its diet relies mainly on
milk, blood, and the meat of small livestock and game. Meat is very rarely part of a formal meal,
but is consumed during special events or for absolute necessity, when no milk is available due to
adverse environmental conditions (Pratt et al. 1997). Conventional thinking holds that bushmeat
is a fundamental integrative food in times of scarcity (Pratt et al. 1997, p.18); conversely, small
prey is also consumed habitually as snack (Barnett 2000). This is relevant because the extent of
bird consumption may not be fully recorded in some surveys since small birds are rarely traded
in many regions, thus are not present in bushmeat markets, or consumed as part of a formal meal.
Moving north into the rangelands of the Sahel, in a nutritional study carried out among
nomad pastoralists, signs of protein energy malnutrition were identified in small children. These
signs disappeared when the boys became old enough to accompany the herds on pasture, and to
hunt birds (Benefice et al. 1984).
Historically, pastoralism thrived, exploiting available resources in the open dry
environments of the sub-Saharan rangeland. It was never a prosperous life, but moving
continually to better pastures maintained a positive nutritional balance for livestock, people and
the environment. The expansion of agricultural areas is limiting such movements in a landscape
whose resources are already depleted by the effects of climate change, and by the overstocking
34
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
triggered by improved veterinary care (Sato 1997; Morris et al. 2008). Pastoralist people may be
forced to rely more on bushmeat, often from birds.
The research by Magige et al. (2009) in the Serengeti area of north Tanzania reveals that,
in the majority of the villages covered by their study, bird hunting is a common occurrence. In
western Serengeti 98.3% of the households regularly hunts small birds. The percentage drops
only to 71.4% in the Maasai villages —traditionally a non hunting ethnic group—on the east of
the park. Doves (Oena spp. and Streptopelia spp.) comprise 47.5% of the quarry, small game
birds Phasianidae 20.4%, and weavers Ploceidae and other unidentified small songbirds 11.9%.
Other recorded quarries are Ostrich, Helmeted Guineafowl (Numida meleagris), and some
parrots Psittacidae. The most common weapon to hunt ostrich is the snare; small birds are
captured with birdlime, an adhesive vegetable substance also used in North Africa and in East
Mediterranean countries, slingshots, dogs, and others means (Magige et al. 2009). The
widespread bird hunting within villages is of special concern considering the higher population
density recorded on average in and around the majority of sub-Saharan IBAs, and future
demographic projections.
In the African rangelands, some species of omnivorous birds such as queleas (Quelea
spp.) which feed on crops at harvest time, are considered vermin and culled in large numbers for
crop protection, and then consumed. The practice is largely unregulated and commonly accepted.
Even in Kenya, a country with strict wildlife protection laws, until recently Queleas culling did
not require formal permission form the Wildlife Service (Barnett 2000, p.201); yet they are now
routinely culled by the Ministry of Agriculture (E.M. Mwangi, personal communication). In
other parts of Africa, lethal crop protection also targets various species of Guineafowls
35
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Numididae, spurfowls (Francolinus spp.) and other Phasianidae shortly after sowing, when these
birds damage newly planted crops (see Hill 1997).
Some of the declining APMs are small omnivores and farmland specialists in their
breeding ranges, such as the Ortolan Bunting (Emberiza hortulana), and birds like the Common
Quail and Corncrake which can easily be mistaken for small resident gamebirds since their nonbreeding ranges are in this area of East Africa and Sahel (Fry et al. 1982-2004). More research is
needed to ascertain if lethal crop protection and pastoralist subsistence can be related to their
declines.
APM and the adaptability of the bushmeat phenomenon
Before considering the environmental implications of bushmeat, it is important to remember the
strong socioeconomic and cultural drivers. Culturally, people prefer bushmeat for its taste or
because it is a traditional food (Mwenja & Kariuki 2009). Such preferences are well known for
some species of large and medium herbivores of the rangelands, yet few references exist
regarding the preference for birds (Barnett 2000). The lack of literature may be partially due to a
bias toward the more charismatic species of the African rangelands, like the Cape buffalo
(Syncerus caffer), wildebeest (Connochaetes spp.), impala (Aepyceros melampus), etc.
Nevertheless, in some areas, birds and other small quarry are commonly consumed,
especially where human encroachment has made the environment inhospitable for larger fauna
(Barnett 2000; Nielsen 2006). Besides local availability, exploiting smaller prey may be induced
by environmental laws not backed by effective socioeconomic policies. Where food is scarce,
bird-catching, processing and consumption can be done covertly, thus lowering the risk of being
penalized for poaching. In addition, birds can simply be preferred for a cost issue. Whichever the
36
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
reason, bushmeat is a staple of most African populations. In West Africa, various authors talk of
“sustainable mature bushmeat markets”, where species with low reproductive rates have long
been exterminated and replaced by prolific and highly adaptable generalist species able to thrive
in simplified ecosystems, as duikers Cephalophinae and rodents (Cowlishaw et al. 2005). This
highlights an important aspect: bushmeat demand does not wane with the changing of the prey
offered; it is not just about taste and tradition, but necessity. Consequentially, the bushmeat
phenomenon is highly adaptable.
As aforementioned, the adaptability encompasses the species hunted, the age and gender
of hunters, traders and consumers. This adaptability can take the most unexpected forms, such as
the snaring of terns (Sterna spp.) on the beaches of Ghana and their trapping in Senegal, where
these medium-small migratory seabirds are actually ‘fished’ using bait, hooks and nylon line. It
is unclear if the practice was a consequence of the dwindling local fisheries but, with an
estimated 10,000 birds captured annually in Senegal alone, tern trapping for food along the coast
of West Africa is one of the major threats to their conservation (Stienen et al. 1998; BirdLife
International 1999).
Afro-Palearctic migratory birds have long been amongst the most hunted game in North
Africa. Historically, they were important for the subsistence of large parts of the population;
today their relevance, in this respect, has decreased locally (BirdLife International 2006, 2006a,
2006b). No information is available on the extent of bird hunting in Ethiopia and North Sudan
but, even with the paucity of data, bird hunting appears to be a common occurrence in Sahel,
East and Southern Africa. In areas with relatively high wild herbivore densities, birds appear to
be killed opportunistically (Barnett 2000; Magige et al. 2009). In other regions, relying on wild
birds for subsistence and trade takes place when large game has disappeared, as in Sahel, on the
37
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
growing agricultural areas along the Rift Valley in Kenya, in the Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania
and in Southern and Central Malawi, among others (Youth 2002; Thiollay 2006a, 2006b; Wittig
et al. 2007).
While the most charismatic African wildlife, the continent’s natural heritage, attracts
large attention, increasing pressure on smaller quarry may silently arise. Consider that: 1) 10% of
African avifauna is Threatened and another 5% is Nearly Threatened (Githiru 2008), 2) the
continent is the poorest region of the world with 40% of the population living below the poverty
line, 3) its population will almost double by 2040 (UNEP 2003; UNDP 2008), and 4) bird
hunting is common practice not only in north Africa and the Nile valley, but likely in most of
sub-Saharan rangelands (Pero & Crowe 1996; Stienen et al. 1998; Barnett 2000; BirdLife
International 2006, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Thiollay 2006a, 2006b; Magige et al 2009). The
probability is high that hunting pressure on birds may be underestimated. And this pressure can
only increase in the future, with the pace of demography, poverty, conversion of the natural
ecosystems, decrease of large game population and increased large game conservation
enforcement.
The majority of APMs are warblers and other small insectivores (Anthus spp., Oenanthe
spp., Acrocephalus spp., Phylloscopus spp., etc.), which are easily impacted by environmental
changes due to the aforementioned scarce adaptability. Their consumptive use in their nonbreeding range, for as little as it might be, is another negative driver which needs to be taken into
consideration when drawing conservative measures in Europe (e.g., bag limits for the huntable
species, designation of protected areas, SPAs, etc.).
Bird-catching at migration times is a recognized traditional practice in North Africa and
some Saharan oases (BirdLife International 2006b). Most human populations of both the Sahara
38
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
and Sahel are nomadic. Thus, inhabitants of the Sahel, who traditionally did not exploit APMs in
the past, might learn the practice through periodic intercultural contacts, and begin taking
advantage of this food source. Some species, such as the European Turtle Dove which
congregates here in large numbers at drinking holes every evening (Fry et al. 1982-2004), might
be easily hunted during all the non-breeding season. Other species, such as the Corncrake and the
Common Quail, have large parts of their non-breeding ranges in East and Southern Africa where
bushmeat is a recognized problem (see http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/), and in areas where
they may be targeted by lethal crop protection.
The direct threat of hunting pressure on APM birds cannot be estimated by a desk study
alone. It would require greater knowledge of migratory bird ecology in Africa than what is
available today, including the likelihood of APM flocking and/or foraging with other resident
species outside the reproductive season, and a better knowledge of the dietary habits and
evolution of hundreds of different cultures dispersed on a huge territory.
The indirect threat of ecosystem disturbance
The energy flow through the food web shapes the various trophic levels of most ecosystems.
This is also the case in the highly interactive African rangelands. The various herbivores
influence the plant community in different ways. In oversimplified terms, elephants reduce the
density of large trees, small antelopes tend to prefer high quality plant tissue, and the large
migratory ungulates (e.g., blue wildebeest C. taurinus) graze on more abundant but less nutrient
forage. This diverse and balanced community of grazers, browsers, generalists, specialists and
megaherbivores has a major role in maintaining the balance of trees, shrubs and grasses, and
their species composition.
39
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Plant communities are also naturally impacted by abiotic conditions such as the local
pedology, fire and precipitations, but as HilleRisLambers et al. (2001) discovered, “the main
driver behind lawn formation in our study— the east African grassland/savannah, the dry open
environment vital for so many declining APM birds—was grazing in interaction with increased
soil fertility”.
A positive relationship has been discovered between the stability of plant functional
properties and the community species diversity. The optimum biodiversity level is linked to
greater biomass stability throughout the different seasons, and greater resilience after
disturbance. The ecologies of both flora and fauna in the African rangelands are strongly related
and interdependent (McNaughton 1983; McNaughton 1985; McNaughton et al. 1988;
HilleRisLambers et al. 2001; Archibald et al. 2005; Cromsigt & Olff 2008).
It is therefore reasonable to foresee that wild ungulate declines due to bushmeat and
landscape disturbance will cause changes in the structures and composition of plant
communities. The alteration of vegetative structure caused by temporary pastoralist settlements
is associated with the presence of different game birds where the most disturbed ecosystems are
always characterized by reduced bird species diversity (Morris et al. 2008). Thus, it can
reasonably be assumed that future environmental changes caused by declining wild ungulate
populations will have an indirect impact on the APM species which use the same territory during
the non-breeding season. Considering the low level of adaptability of long-distance migratory
birds and the non-optimal fitness due to habitat loss or disturbance in non-breeding sites both of
which affect breeding success in Europe (Drent & Daan 1980; Norris et al. 2004; Sol et al. 2005;
Schultz et al. 2005; Norris & Marra 2007), the indirect effect of bushmeat may have strong
consequences on APM conservation success.
40
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
CONCLUSION
Is the bushmeat phenomenon in the sub-Saharan rangelands a significant driver behind the
decline of so many long-distance European migratory birds? This is a complex question which,
at present, has no definitive answer.
According to the Bonn, Bern, and CBD Conventions, the EU has the responsibility to
ensure that all the species thrive within its territory, paying particular attention to those of global
concern which have an Unfavorable Conservation Status within the EU25. In a world plagued by
rising extinction rates, waiting for the formal criteria of the IUCN Red List to be met seems a
dangerous gamble. Given limited financial resources this gamble, at times, is unavoidable; but
for wide-ranging and highly dispersed species whose ecologies are still partially unknown, the
precautionary principle of proactive protection seems the wisest choice. This is the case for all
APMs.
The Annex V of the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) clearly dictates all Signatory
Members to undertake “listing and ecological description of areas particularly important to
migratory species on their migratory routes and as wintering and nesting grounds” and
“assessing the influence of methods of taking wild birds on population levels”. This, for longdistance migrants, is clearly not feasible if research is limited to EU territories or even EU
territories plus those few countries involved in the Emerald Network program and the Regional
Action Plan for moving towards responsible hunting & conservation of migratory birds in the
southern and eastern Mediterranean regions.
It is impossible to secure the Favorable Conservation Status of any species if its ecology
is not thoroughly understood, as amply suggested by the existing literature; especially in a world
41
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
stressed by anthropic and climatic pressures, and when dealing with relatively non-adaptable
animals. Ecological data regarding many APMs, while in the African continent, are often too
scarce to assess local threats, population dynamics and thus formulate effective conservation
policies in any part of their global range.
More research is needed for all these species. This research would benefit from a
multidisciplinary approach. Besides the obvious ornithological studies to fill in present
knowledge gaps, detailed data on the consumptive use of wildlife is needed for the countries of
the Sahelian strip, and especially Sudan and Ethiopia which are also part of the East African
Flyway. The studies carried out in the Sahel concentrate mainly on anthropological,
demographic, political, socioeconomic, agricultural, climatic, and botanical issues, and on some
endemic threatened fauna. Given the importance of this region as non-breeding range and staging
area for most APMs, a better picture of which species are hunted for human consumption,
hunting seasonality, timing and techniques, etc, would help both African and European
biodiversity conservation. This better picture is secured by ongoing studies which follow the
evolution of new survival techniques derived by shifting environmental conditions.
In East and Southern Africa, where the bushmeat phenomenon has received more
attention, further information on small bird quarries is needed, notwithstanding their minute
percentage in some locations or seasons. Most of the available literature gives exhaustive species
lists for mammal prey, but mentions avian prey simply as birds, with the exception of Ostrich
and Guineafowl. Even studies focusing on avian prey are often limited to the genus or the family,
which are clearly not sufficient to assess the consumptive use of APMs. Building local capacity,
as already supported by local institutions and international organizations, may be a better tool to
42
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
understand coveted consumptive use of wildlife, be it for food, trade or crop protection. Better
knowledge is vital to assess unknown threats, and to prevent global biodiversity loss.
Sound socioeconomic alternatives and education strategies have been identified as
fundamental for APM conservation in the North African and East Mediterranean countries. An
example is the recent Regional Action Plan for moving towards responsible hunting &
conservation of migratory birds in the southern and eastern Mediterranean regions (2008-2013)
(BirdLife International 2006, 2007). Such endeavors are admirable and indeed helpful but will
have limited impact so long as EU efforts and funding for conservation interventions do not
cover the full flyway of long-distance migrants. Most Africans countries can hardly fund these
projects on their own.
International conventions such as the CBD and CITES, of which most countries are
signatories, constitute the framework for formal environmental policies in sub-Saharan Africa.
Nevertheless, the political will and material means to enforce such policies may be lacking;
national agendas frequently deviate from international agreements due to poverty, civil unrest
and corruption. Biodiversity conservation in Africa is still dependant on non-governmental
organizations, international support and private philanthropists whose goals are not always in
sync with each other; the availability and continuity of conservation efforts is often dictated more
by economic and politic factors than ecological ones (Homewood 2004; Githiru 2008). Since
successful conservation relies also on continuity, it is of the utmost importance that appropriate
socio-economic alternatives and policies, alongside site-specific environmental policies, should
be envisaged and implemented in Africa on the totality of their ranges. Without these, it is
unlikely Europe will ever succeed in the conservation of Afro-Palearctic migrants.
43
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Their conservation can be another opportunity to strengthen international cooperation,
raise civil awareness, develop further academic relationships and open new research
opportunities between Africa and Europe. It will also highlight the complex bushmeat crisis
which deserves more attention from the EU as a socioeconomic issue, not just as a threat to
European biodiversity.
44
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
REFERENCES
Amum, P., and H.E. Eves. 2009. BEAN Bushmeat Fact Sheet: Boma National Park Assessment,
Southern Sudan. Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa Network. Available at
http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/BEAN-Fact-Sheet.Boma-National-Park-Field-Assessment.pdf
Andimile, M., and H.E. Eves. 2009. BEAN Bushmeat Fact Sheet: Katavi National Park Field
Assessment, Tanzania. Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa Network. Available at
http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/BEAN-Fact-Sheet.Katavi-National-Park-Field-Assessment.pdf
anon. 2008, January 29. Customs officers seize hundreds of headless rats destined for London
restaurants. Dailymail (online). Available http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article511053/Customs-officers-seize-hundreds-headless-rats-destined-London-restaurants.html
Archibald, S., W.J. Bond, W.D. Stock, and D.H.K. Fairbanks. 2005. Shaping the landscape: firegrazer interactions in an African savanna. Ecological Applications 15:96-109.
Arinaitwe, J.A., P.C. Ngeh, and H.S. Thompson. 2007. The contribution of the important Bird
Areas programme to the conservation of birds in Africa. Ostrich 78:139-143,
doi:10.2989/OSTRICH.2007.78.2.5.85
Bairlein, F. 1985. Efficiency of food utilization during fat deposition in the long-distance
migratory garden warbler, Sylvia borin. Oecologia 68:118-125, doi:
10.1007/BF00379483
Barnett, R. 2000. Trade Review – Food for thought: the utilization of wild meat in Eastern and
Southern Africa. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.
Bednekoff, P.A., and A.I. Houston. 1994. Dynamic Models of Mass-Dependent Predation, RiskSensitive Foraging, and Premigratory Fattening in Birds. Ecology 75:1131-1140.
Bell, C.P. 2007. Timing of pre-nuptial migration and leap-frog patterns in Yellow Wagtails
(Motacilla flava). Ostrich 78:327-331, doi: 10.29B9/OSTRICH.2007.78.2.33.113
Benfice, E., S. Chevassus-Agnes, and H. Barral. 1984. Nutritional situation and seasonal
variation for pastoralist populations of the Sahel (Senegalese Ferlo). Ecology of Food and
Nutrition 14:229-247, doi: 0367.0244/84/1403-0229
Berendse, F., D. Chamberlain, D. Kleijn and H. Schekkerman. 2004. Declining biodiversity in
agricultural landscapes and the effectiveness of Agri-environment schemes. Ambio
33:499-502.
BirdLife International. 1999. International (East Atlantic) Action Plan: Roseate Tern Sterna
dougalii. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK, on behalf of the European Commission.
45
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/sterna_
dougalii.pdf
BirdLife International. 2004. Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. Wageningen,
the Netherlands. Available at http://birdsineurope.BirdLife.org
BirdLife International. 2005. Strategy for the conservation and sustainable management of IBAs
in Africa: 2005-2015. BirdLife Africa Partnership Secretariat, Nairobi, Kenya.
BirdLife International. 2006. Guidelines for moving towards sustainable hunting of migratory
birds in the Mediterranean Countries of North Africa and the Middle East. (LIFE 04
TCY/INT/000054). Cambridge, UK. Available at
http://www.BirdLife.org/action/change/sustainable-hunting/PDFs/SHP-GuidelinesFINAL-Oct-06.pdf
BirdLife International. 2006a. Bird hunting practices in Mediterranean Third Countries of North
Africa and the Middle East (Synthesis Report I). Cambridge, UK. Available at
http://www.BirdLife.org/action/change/sustainable-hunting/PDFs/SHP-SR1-BirdHunting-Practices.pdf
BirdLife International. 2006b. Religious, cultural and socio-economic importance of migratory
birds hunting in Mediterranean Third Countries of North Africa and the Middle East
(Synthesis Report IV). Cambridge, UK. Available at
http://www.BirdLife.org/action/change/sustainable-hunting/PDFs/SHP-SR4-ReligiousCultural-Socioeconomic-importance.pdf
BirdLife International. 2007. Regional Action Plan for moving towards responsible hunting &
conservation of migratory birds in the southern and eastern Mediterranean regions
(2008-2013). Available at http://www.BirdLife.org/action/change/sustainablehunting/PDFs/SHP-Regional-Action-Plan-FINAL.pdf
BirdLife International. 2008. State of the world’s birds: indicators for our changing world.
Cambridge, UK. Available at
http://www.biodiversityinfo.org/sowb/userfiles/docs/SOWB2008-en.pdf
Boere, G.C., and D.A. Stroud. 2006. The flyway concept: what it is and what it isn’t. In:
Waterbirds Around the World. Eds G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith, and D.A. Stroud. The
Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. Available at:
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=3891
Boitani, L., A. Falcucci, L. Maiorano, and C. Rondinini. 2007. Ecological networks as
conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation. Conservation Biology
21:1414-1422, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00828.x
46
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Brooks, T., A. Baimford , N. Burgess, L. Hansen, J. Moore, C. Rahbek, P. Williams, L. Bennun,
A. Byaruhanga, P. Kasoma, P. Njoroge, D. Pomeroy, and M. Wondafrash. 2001.
Conservation priorities for birds and biodiversity; do East African important Bird Areas
represent species diversity in other terrestrial vertebrate groups? Ostrich (supplement)
15:3-12.
Brooks, T., and H. Shokellu Thompson. 2001. Current bird conservation issues in Africa. The
Auk 118:575-582, doi: 10.1642/0004-8038(2001)118[0575:CBCIIA]2.0.CO;2
Brouwer, J., and G. Boere. 2009. A bird’s eye view on flyways: a brief tour by the Convention
on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. UNEP/CMS Secretariat,
Bonn, Germany. ISBN 978-3-937429-99-1
Buchanan, G. M., P.F. Donald, L.D.C. Fishpool, J.A. Arinaitwe, M. Balman, and P. Mayaux.
2009. An assessment of land cover and threats in Important Bird Areas in Africa. Bird
Conservation International 19:49-61, doi:10.1017/S0959270908007607
Caro, T., and M. Andimile. 2009, January. Does Tanzania have a bushmeat Crisis? Miombo
Newsletter 33. Available at: http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/?cat=35
Cloudsley-Thompson, J.L. 1992. Wildlife massacres in Sudan. Oryx 26: 202-204.
Council of Europe. 2005. Development of the Emerald Network: General principles of the
examining and approving Emerald sites put forward by states (T-PVS/Emerald 09e.05).
Council of Europe, Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage, Strasbourg,
France.
Council of Europe. 2007. Draft Work Programme of the Emerald Network for 2008 (TPVS/Emerald 07e.16 Draft work programme 2008.doc). Council of Europe, Directorate
of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage, Strasbourg, France.
Cowlishaw, G., S. Mendelson, and J.M. Rowcliffe. 2005. Evidence for post-depletion
sustainability in a mature bushmeat market. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 460-468, doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01046.x
Cresswell W.R.L.J. M. Wilson, J. Vickery, P. Jones, and S. Holt. 2007. Changes in densities of
Sahelian bird species in response to recent habitat degradation. Ostrich 78:247-253, doi:
10-29B9/OSTRICH.2Q07J8-2.20.100
Cromsigt, J.P.G.M., and H. Olff. 2008. Dynamics of grazing lawn formation: an experimental
test of the role of scale-dependent processes. Oikos 117:1444-1452, doi:
10.1111/j.2008.0030-1299.16651.x
Damalu, L.S., and H.E. Eves. 2009. BEAN Bushmeat Fact Sheet: Urban Centers in Morogoro
and Kilombero Districts Field Assessment, Tanzania. Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa
47
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Network. Available at http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/BEAN-Fact-Sheet.-Field-Assessment-of-Urban-Centers-2.pdf
Darkoh, M.B.K. 2003. Regional perspectives on agriculture and biodiversity in the drylands of
Africa. Journal of Arid Environments. 54: 261-279, doi:10.1006/jare.2002.1089
Degu, T. 2007. Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi, Oustalet, 1882) Challenges of Survival in the
Pastoralist Dominated Arid Ecosystems of Chew Bahir and Sarite, Southern Ethiopia.
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Available at
http://etd.aau.edu.et/dspace/handle/123456789/372
Dodman, T, and C. Diagana. 2007. Movements of waterbirds within Africa and their
conservation. Ostrich 78:149-154, doi: 10.2989/OSTRICH.2007.78.2.7.87
Donald, P.F., R.E. Green, and M.F. Heath. 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of
Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B
268:25-29, doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1325
Drent, R.H., and S. Daan.1980. The prudent parent: energetic adjustments in avian breeding.
Ardea 68:225-252. Available at http://ardeajournal.natuurinfo.nl/ardeapdf/a68-225252.pdf
EC. 2009a. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/index_en.htm
EC. 2009b. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/bap_2008.htm
Engerman, R.M., and P. Evangelista. 2006. Investigating the feasibility of a passive tracking
index for monitoring wildlife in the Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia. African Journal of
Ecology 45: 184-188.
Eves, H.E., and M.I. Bakarr. 2001. Impacts of bushmeat hunting on wildlife populations in West
Africa’s Upper Guinea forest ecosystems. Pages 39-53 in M.I. Bakarr, G.A.B. de
Fonseca, R. Mittermeier, A.B. Rylands, and K.W. Painemilla, editors. Hunting and
bushmeat utilization in the African rain forest – perspectives toward a blueprint for
conservation action. Conservation International, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science,
Washington, D.C.
FAO. 2002. A thorn on every rose for Kenya's flower industry: Floriculture presents challenges
as well as opportunities for Kenyan smallholders. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome , IT. Available at
http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/3789-en.html
FAOSTAT. 2009. Database of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization. Available at
http://faostat.fao.org
48
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Forchhammer, M.C., E. Post, and N.C. Stenseth. 2002. North Atlantic Oscillation timing of longand short-distance migration. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:1002–1014. Available at
http://www.zi.ku.dk/popecol/APE/Downloads/Pdf/publications/JAE71-2002.pdf
Fry, C.H., S. Keith, and E.K. Urban. 1982-2004. The birds of Africa. Academic Press INC.,
London, UK.
Gelman, N. 2009, Jun 19. Food Security and Conservation in Africa: Addressing Hunger and
Farming Issues to Conserve Wildlife. ABCG-BCTF meeting notes. Available at
http://www.bushmeat.org/node/53
Githiru, M. 2008. Conservation of birds in Africa: are we making any headway? The African
Journal of Ecology 46:233-234, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.00993.x
Gordo, O., L. Brotons, X. Ferrer, and P. Comas. 2004. Do changes in climate patterns in
wintering areas affect the timing of the spring arrival of trans-Saharan migrant birds?
Global Change Biology 11:12-21, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00875.x
Hill, C.M. 1997. Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: the farmer's perspective in an agricultural
community in western Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management 43: 77-84,
doi: 10.1080/096708797229022
HilleRisLambers, R., M. Rietkerk, F. van den Bosch, H.H.T. Prins, and H. de Kroon. 2001.
Vegetation pattern formation in semi-arid grazing systems. Ecology 82:50-61.
Hoffman, L.C. 2008. The yield and nutritional value of meat from African ungulates, camelidae,
rodents, ratites and reptiles. Meat Science 80: 94-100, doi:
10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.05.018.
Holmern, T., J. Muya, and E. Røskaft. 2007. Local law enforcement and illegal bushmeat
hunting outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Environmental Conservation
34:55-63, doi: 10.1017/S0376892907003712
Homewood, K.M. 2004. Policy, environment and development in African rangelands.
Environmental Science & Policy 7:125-143, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2003.12.006
Honan, E. 2009, February 22. Bushmeat, an African delicacy, facing NY crackdown. Reuters
(online). Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN20521558 (2009,
March 12)
Jambiya, G., S. Milledge, and N. Mtango. 2007. ‘Night Time Spinach’: Conservation and
livelihood implications of wild meat use in refugee situations in North-Western Tanzania.
TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
49
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Jones, P., J. Vickery, S. Holt, and W. Cresswell. 1996. A preliminary assessment of some factors
influencing the density and distribution of Palearctic passerine migrants wintering in the
Sahel zone of West Africa. Bird Study 43:73-84, doi: 10.1080/00063659609460997
Kirby, J.S., A.J. Stattersfield, S.H.M. Butchart, M.I. Evans, R.F.A. Grimmett, V.R. Jones, J.
O’Sullivan, G.M. Tucker, and I. Newton. 2008. Key conservation issues for migratory
land- and waterbird species on the world’s major flyways. Bird Conservation
International. 18:S49-S73, doi: 10.1017/S0959270908000439
Lawton, J.H., D.E. Bignell, B. Bolton, G.F. Bloemers, P. Eggleton, P. M. Hammond, M. Hodda,
R.D. Holt, T.B. Larsen, N.A. Mawdsley, N.E. Stork, D.S. Srivastava and A.D. Watt.
1998. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in
tropical forest. Nature 391:72-76, doi: 10.1038/34166
Lemoine, N., and K.Böhning-Gaese. 2003. Potential impact of global climate change on species
richness of long-distance migrants. Conservation Biology 17:577–586, doi:
10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01389.x
LIFE. 2007. The sustainable hunting project: Building capacity for sustainable hunting of
migratory birds in Mediterranean Third Countries (LIFE 04 TCY/INT/000054)
European Commission LIFE Third Countries, Brussels, Belgium. Available at
http://www.birdlife.org/action/change/sustainable_hunting/
Loibooki, M., H. Hofer, K.L.J. Campbell, and M.L. East. 2002. Bushmeat hunting by
communities adjacent to the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania: the importance of
livestock ownership and alternative sources of protein and income. Environmental
Conservation 29:391-398, doi: 10.1017/S0376892902000279
Mackworth-Praed, C.W., and C.H.B. Grant. 1957. African Handbook of birds: Eastern and
North-eastern Africa. Longman, New York, NY.
Magige, F.J., T. Holmern, S. Stokke, C Mlingwa, and E. Røskaft. 2009. Does illegal hunting
affect density and behaviour of African grassland birds? A case study on Ostrich
(Struthio camelus). Biodiversity Conservation 18:1361-1373, doi: 10.1007/s10531-0089481-6
McNaughton, S.J. 1983. Serengeti grassland ecology: the role of composite environmental
factors and contingency in community organization. Ecological Monographs 53:291-320.
McNaughton, S.J. 1985. Ecology of a grazing ecosystem: The Serengeti. Ecological
Monographs 55:260-294.
McNaughton, S.J., R.W. Ruess, and S.W. Seagle. 1988. Large mammals and process dynamics
in African ecosystems BioScience 38:794-800.
50
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Morris, D.L., D. Western, and D. Maitumo. 2008. Pastoralist’s livestock and settlements
influence game bird diversity and abundance in a savanna ecosystem of southern Kenya.
African Journal of Ecology 47:48-55, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2007.00914.x
Mduma, S.A.R., A.R.E. Sinclair, and R. Hilborn. 1999. Food regulates the Serengeti wildebeest:
a 40-year record. Journal of Animal Ecology 68:1101-1122, doi: 10.1046/j.13652656.1999.00352.x
Milner-Gullanda, E.J., E.L. Bennett. 2003. Wild meat: the bigger picture. TRENDS in Ecology
and Evolution Vol.18: 351-357, doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00123-X
Moore, P.D. 2001, Feb. Ecology: The rising cost of bushmeat. Nature 409: 775-777.
Muchai, M., P. Gabor Love, and P.K. Ndang’ang’a. 2007. Europe-Africa songbird migration:
relative abundance of migrants in relation to habitat structure and composition of resident
avifauna in Mwea National Reserve, Kenya. Ostrich (abstract) 78:369-373.
Muchai, M., L. Lens, L.A. Bennun. 2002. Habitat selection and conservation of Sharpe’s
longclaw (Macronyx sharpei), a threatened Kenyan grassland endemic. Biological
Conservation 105:271-277, doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00118-5
Mwenja, I. 2008. The evolution of Kenya’s protectionist wildlife policy. Swara magazine 12:3437. Available at: http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/swarapolicy-bushmeat-article1.pdf
Mwenja, I. and H.E. Eves. 2009. BEAN Bushmeat Fact Sheet: Kenya Bushmeat-free Eastern
Africa Network. Available at http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2008/12/BEAN-Fact-Sheet.-KenyaWildlife-PolicyGame-Ranching-feildAssessment.pdf
Mwenja, I., and E. Kariuki. 2009, May 20. Kenya Bushmeat Symposium Report. East African
Wildlife Society, Nairobi, Kenya.
Nasi, R., D.Brown, D. Wilkie, E. Bennett, C. Tutin, G. van Tol, and Christophersen, T. 2008.
Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: the bushmeat crisis. Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, and Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR), Bogor. Technical Series no. 33.
Ndang’ang’a, P.K., M.A. du Plessis, P.G. Ryan, and L.A. Bennun. 2002. Grassland decline in
Kinangop Plateau Kenya: implications for the conservation of Sharpe’s Longclaw
Macronyx sharpei. Biological Conservation 107:341-350, doi: 10.1016/S00063207(02)00072-1
Newby, J.E. 1990. The slaughter of Sahelian wildlife by Arab royalty. Oryx 24:6-8.
51
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Newton, I. 2004. Population limitation in migrants. Ibis 146:197–226, doi: 10.1111/j.1474919X.2004.00293.x
Nielsen, M.R. 2006. Importance, cause and effect of bushmeat hunting in the Udzungwa
Mountains, Tanzania: Implications for community based wildlife management.
Biological Conservation 128:509-516, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.017
Norris, D.R., and P.P. Marra. 2007. Seasonal interactions, habitat quality, and population
dynamics in migratory birds. The Condor 109:535-547, doi: 10.1650/8350.1.
Norris, D.R., P.P. Marra, T.K. Kyser, T.W. Sherry, and L. M. Ratcliff. 2004. Tropical winter
habitat limits reproductive success on the temperate breeding grounds in a migratory bird.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 271:59-64, doi:
10.1098/rspb.2003.2569
Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y, 1997. Wildlife and food security in Africa. FAO Conservation Guide 33.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Nuñez-Iturri, G., and H.F. Howe. 2007. Bushmeat and the Fate of Trees with Seeds Dispersed by
Large Primates in a Lowland Rain Forest in Western Amazonia. Biotropica - the Journal
of tropical biology and conservation 39: 348-354, doi: 10.1111/j.17447429.2007.00276.x
Okello, G., and H.E. Eves. 2009. BEAN Bushmeat Fact Sheet: Urban Centers in Uganda.
Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa Network. Available at
http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/BEAN-Fact-Sheet.-FieldAssessment-of-Urban-Centers.pdf
Okello, M.M., and J.W. Kiringe. 2004. Threats to biodiversity and their implications in protected
and adjacent dispersal areas of Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12:55-69, doi:
10.1080/09669580408667224
Opyene, V., and H.E. Eves. 2009. BEAN Bushmeat Fact Sheet: Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya
Governance and Legal Regime Field Assessment. Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa
Network. Available at http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/BEAN-Fact-Sheet.-Governance-and-Legal-Regime-FieldAssessment.pdf
Pero, L.V., and T.M. Crowe. 1996. Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris in Kwazulu-Natal:
a case for non-sustainability. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 26: 123-131.
Pratt, D.J., F. Le Gall, and C de Haan. 1997. Investing in pastoralism: Sustainable natural
resource use in arid Africa and the Middle East (technical paper 365) World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
52
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Ratcliffe, C.S., and T.M. Crowe. 2001. Declining populations of helmeted guineafowl in the
Midlands of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a review of causes and remedies. South
African Journal of Wildlife Research 31: 161-171.
Sanderson, F.J., P.F. Donald, D.J. Pain, I.J. Burfield, and F.P.J. Bommel. 2006. Long-term
population declines in Afro-Palearctic migrant birds. Biological Conservation 131:93105, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.008
Sato, S. 1997. How the east African pastoral nomads, especially the Rendille, respond to the
encroaching market economy. African Study Monographs 18:121-135
Schultz, S., R.B. Bradbury, K.L. Evans, R.D. Gregory, and T.M. Blackburn. 2005. Brain size and
resource specialization predict long-term population trends in British birds. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London Series B 272:2305–2311, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3250
Schmaljohann, H., F. Liechti, and B. Borderers. 2007. Daytime passerine migrants over the
Sahara – are these diurnal migrants or prolonged flights of nocturnal migrants? Ostrich
78: 357-362, doi: 10.2989/OSTRICH.2007.78.2.38.118
Seme, I.S., and H.E. Eves. 2009. BEAN Bushmeat Fact Sheet: Bandingalo National Park and
Bor Field Assessment. Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa Network. Available at
http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/BEAN-Fact-Sheet.Bandingalo-National-Park-and.pdf
Sinclair, A.R.E., S.A.R. Mduma, and P. Arcese. 2002. Protected areas as biodiversity
benchmarks for human impact: agriculture and the Serengeti avifauna. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London Series B 269:2401–2405, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2116
Soini, E. 2006. Bird diversity and land use on the slopes of Mt Kilimanjaro and the adjacent
plains, Tanzania. African Zoology 41: 193-209, doi: 10.3377/15627020(2006)41[193:BDALUO]2.0.CO;2
Sol, D., L. Lefebvre, and J.D. Rodriguez-Teijeiro. 2005. Brain size, innovative propensity and
migratory behavior in temperate Palearctic birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London Series B 272:1433–1441, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3099
Stienen, E.W.M., A. Jonard, and A. Brenninkmeijer. 1998. Tern trapping along the Senegalese
coast (abstract). Sula 1:19-26. Available at
http://www.vliz.be/imis/imis.php?module=ref&refid=18311
Stoate, C., and Moreby, S. J.1995. Premigratory diet of trans-Saharan migrant passerines in the
western Sahel. Bird Study 42:101-106, doi: 10.1080/00063659509477156
Thiollay, J.M. 2006a. Large bird declines with increasing human pressure in savanna woodlands
(Burkina Faso). Biodiversity Conservation 15:2085–2108, doi: 10.1007/s10531-0046684-3
53
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
Thiollay, J.M. 2006b. Severe decline of large birds in the Northern Sahel of West Africa: a longterm assessment. Bird Conservation International 16:353–365, doi:
10.1017/S0959270906000487
Thon Aleu, P. 2009, March 16. Jonglei arrests poachers. Sudan Tribune (online). Available
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article30517 (2009, September 2)
TRAFFIC. 2008. The illegal trade in wild birds for food through South-east and Central Europe.
TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP. 2003. Action plan of the environment initiative of the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD). UNEP. Available at
http://www.un.org/africa/osaa/cpcreports/22.UNEP_formatted.pdf
United Nations. 1993. Multilateral – Convention on biological diversity (with annexes).
Concluded at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 (registered ex officio on 29 December 1993
- Treaty series, Vol. 1760, I-30619) United Nations, New York, NY. Available at
http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-un-en.pdf
UNPD. 2008. World Population Prospect: the 2008 Revision Population Database. Available at
http://esa.un.org/unpp/
Wickens, G.E. 1997. Has the Sahel a future? Journal of Arid Environments
37:649-663, doi: 10.1006/jare.1997.0303
Wisz, M.S., B.A. Walther, and C. Rahbek. 2007. Using potential distributions to explore
determinants of Western Palearctic migratory songbird species richness in sub-Saharan
Africa. Journal of Biogeography 34: 828-841, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01661.x
With, K.A., and A.W. King. 2001. Analysis of landscape sources and sinks: the effect of spatial
pattern on avian demography. Biological Conservation 100: 75-88, doi: 10.1016/S00063207(00)00209-3
Wittig, R., K. König, M. Schmidt, and J. Szarzynski. 2007. A study of climate change and
anthropogenic impacts in West Africa. Environmental Science 14:182-189, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.02.388
Wright, S.J. 2005. Tropical forests in a changing environment. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
20: 553-560, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.07.009
Wright, S.J., A. Hernandéz, and R. Condit. 2007. The Bushmeat Harvest Alters Seedling Banks
by Favoring Lianas, Large Seeds, and Seeds Dispersed by Bats, Birds, and Wind.
Biotropica - the Journal of tropical biology and conservation 39: 363-371, doi:
10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00289.x
54
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
WWF. 2009. Available at
http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/alps/our_solutions/natura_2000/
Yohannes, E., K.A. Hobson, and D.J. Pearson. 2007. Feather stable-isotope profiles reveal stopover habitat selection and site fidelity in nine migratory species moving through subSaharan Africa. Journal of Avian Biology 38:347-355, doi: 10.1111/j.2007.09088857.03027.x
Youth, H. 2002. The Plight of Birds. World Watch 15:18-29. Available at
http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EP153B.pdf
55
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
APPENDIX I
List of all Afro-Palearctic long-distant migrants with their mean population trends in 19701990 and 1990-2000
•
Species with consistent negative trends in the 30 yrs period are typed in black;
•
Species without consistent negative trends in all the 30 yrs period are typed in gray;
•
The habitat of species which non-breeding range falls within sub-Saharan rangelands are
indicated as: F) for dry forest or wooded savannah; D) for dry savannah, grassland or other
dry open habitat; W) for wet grassland or wetland; C) for freshwater or costal; and A) for all
habitats (Fry et al. 1982-2004; Sanderson et al. 2006).
SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME
TREND 70-90
TREND 90-00 HABITAT
Manx Shearwater
Little Bittern
Black-crowned Night-heron
Squacco Heron
Purple Heron
Black Stork
White Stork
Glossy Ibis
Garganey
European Honey-buzzard
Black Kite
Egyptian Vulture
Short-toed Snake-eagle
Pallid Harrier
Montagu’s Harrier
Levant Sparrowhawk
Lesser Spotted Eagle
Booted Eagle
Osprey
Lesser Kestrel
Red-footed Falcon
Eurasian Hobby
Eleonora’s Falcon
Common Quail
Spotted Crake
Little Crake
Baillon’s Crake
Corncrake
Black-winged Stilt
Collared Pratincole
Black-winged Pratincole
Little Ringed Plover
Temminck’s Stint
Ruff
Great Snipe
Whimbrel
Puffinus puffinus
Ixobrychus minutus
Nycticorax nycticorax
Ardeola ralloides
Ardea purpurea
Ciconia nigra
Ciconia ciconia
Plegadis falcinellus
Anas querquedula
Pernis apivorus
Milvus migrans
Neophron percnopterus
Circaetus gallicus
Circus macrourus
Circus pygargus
Accipiter brevipes
Aquila pomarina
Hieraaetus pennatus
Pandion haliaetus
Falco naumanni
Falco vespertinus
Falco subbuteo
Falco eleonorae
Coturnix coturnix
Porzana porzana
Porzana parva
Porzana pusilla
Crex crex
Himantopus himantopus
Glareola pratincola
Glareola nordmanni
Charadrius dubius
Calidris temminckii
Philomachus pugnax
Gallinago media
Numenius phaeopus
-2.156
-0.5079
-0.2545
-0.7657
-0.813
0.9107
-0.3525
-0.7779
-0.5034
0.06443
-0.4111
-0.7453
0.1575
-0.7694
0.998
0.3048
-0.0132
0.003484
0.4035
-1.5852
-1.6887
0.1373
-0.2842
-0.9198
-0.4592
-1.0135
-0.8343
-1.3258
-0.2554
-0.9945
0.2249
0.09126
-0.6903
-0.7423
-1.7035
0.6249
1.3417
0.2665
0.446
-0.09572
0.4015
0.6203
1.3792
-0.03948
-0.9911
0.2757
-0.826
-1.9923
0.2788
-1.8983
1.3545
-2.8086
0.0658
0.8936
0.733
-0.106
-2.7095
0.5957
-0.5737
-0.2134
-0.381
-0.6636
-0.259
0.005623
1.0854
-0.9148
-4.1868
-0.1881
-2.6938
-0.7423
-2.0528
-0.5715
C
W, C
W, C
C, W
C
W, D
D
W
C, W
F
A
D
D, F
D
D
n/a
F
F, D
C
D
D
F
D
D
W
W
W
D, W
W, C
D
D
W
W
W, D
W
C
56
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME
TREND 70-90
TREND 90-00 HABITAT
Marsh Sandpiper
Common Greenshank
Green Sandpiper
Wood Sandpiper
Common Sandpiper
Red-necked Phalarope
Gull-billed Tern
Caspian Tern
Sandwich Tern
Roseate Tern
Common Tern
Arctic Tern
Little Tern
Whiskered Tern
Black Tern
White-winged Tern
European Turtle-dove
Great Spotted Cuckoo
Common Cuckoo
Common Scops-owl
Eurasian Nightjar
Common Swift
Pallid Swift
Alpine Swift
European Bee-eater
European Roller
Eurasian Hoopoe
Eurasian Wryneck
Greater Short-toed Lark
Sand Martin
Barn Swallow
Red-rumped Swallow
Northern House-martin
Tawny Pipit
Tree Pipit
Yellow Wagtail
Citrine Wagtail
Rufous-tailed Scrub-robin
Thrush Nightingale
Common Nightingale
Bluethroat
Common Redstart
Whinchat
Northern Wheatear
Pied Wheateart
Tringa stagnatilis
Tringa nebularia
Tringa ochropus
Tringa glareola
Tringa hypoleucos
Phalaropus lobatus
Sterna nilotica
Sterna caspia
Sterna sandvicensis
Sterna dougallii
Sterna hirundo
Sterna paradisaea
Sterna albifrons
Chlidonias hybridus
Chlidonias niger
Chlidonias leucopterus
Streptopelia turtur
Clamator glandarius
Cuculus canorus
Otus scops
Caprimulgus europaeus
Apus apus
Apus pallidus
Tachymarptis melba
Merops apiaster
Coracias garrulus
Upupa epops
Jynx torquilla
Calandrella brachydactyla
Riparia riparia
Hirundo rustica
Hirundo daurica
Delichon urbica
Anthus campestris
Anthus trivialis
Motacilla flava
Motacilla citreola
Cercotrichas galactotes
Luscinia luscinia
Luscinia megarhynchos
Luscinia svecica
Phoenicurus phoenicurus
Saxicola rubetra
Oenanthe oenanthe
Oenanthe pleschanka
0.03977
-0.07458
0.6958
-0.9988
-0.1402
-0.5796
-0.3021
-0.9493
0.2574
-1.4144
0.1983
-0.09274
-0.3572
0.4556
-0.7352
0.9712
-0.8318
-0.7161
-0.2855
0.1474
-1.0503
-0.4171
0.7247
0.4626
-0.1852
-1.8521
-0.5903
-0.7337
-0.6652
-0.5883
-0.7516
1.0224
-0.2473
-0.1231
-0.1103
0.03798
1.4884
0.335
0.3126
0.08911
0.223
-0.5789
-0.3274
-0.1385
-0.7952
-2.1768
1.3109
1.4162
0.1621
-0.4973
-0.6988
-0.7054
1.2128
0.1942
1.1509
0.3525
0.03333
-0.9857
1.0933
-0.4491
0.1683
-2.1688
0.3221
-0.3613
0.5864
-0.1571
-0.5213
1.7036
0.6062
0.731
-1.8521
-0.5489
-0.5967
-2.1494
-0.2181
-0.4956
0.7101
-0.5979
-0.1086
-0.5753
-0.4064
1.9908
-0.248
0.3781
-0.3907
0.4343
1.3943
-0.07723
-0.736
1.002
C
W, C
W, C
W
—
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
W
C
W
D
D
D, F
D, F
F, D
A
A
A
D
D
F
F, D
D
D, W
A
D
A
D
F
D, W
—
D
D, W
D, F
W
D, F
D, W
D
F, D
57
Carlo Contesso 905352005
Project & Report NR 5904 – Draft #2
Summer 2009
SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME
TREND 70-90
TREND 90-00 HABITAT
Black-eared Wheatear
Rufous-tailed Rock-thrush
Common Grasshopperwarbler
Eurasian River Warbler
Savi’s Warbler
Aquatic Warbler
Sedge Warbler
Oenanthe hispanica
Monticola saxatilis
Locustella naevia
-0.6606
-0.4625
0.2824
-0.292
-0.2722
0.9293
D
—
D, F, W
Locustella fluviatilis
Locustella luscinioides
Acrocephalus paludicola
Acrocephalus
schoenobaenus
Acrocephalus agricola
Acrocephalus dumetorum
Acrocephalus palustris
Acrocephalus scirpaceus
Acrocephalus
arundinaceus
Hippolais pallida
Hippolais olivetorum
Hippolais icterina
Hippolais polyglotta
Sylvia cantillans
Sylvia hortensis
Sylvia nisoria
Sylvia curruca
Sylvia communis
Sylvia borin
Phylloscopus trochiloides
Phylloscopus bonelli
Phylloscopus sibilatrix
Phylloscopus trochilus
Muscicapa striata
Ficedula parva
Ficedula semitorquata
Ficedula albicollis
Ficedula hypoleuca
Oriolus oriolus
Lanius collurio
Lanius minor
Lanius senator
Sturnus roseus
Carpodacus erythrinus
Emberiza hortulana
Emberiza rustica
Emberiza melanocephala
-0.1756
0.06098
-1.0841
-0.06113
0.07569
0.09437
-0.1682
0.1269
D, W
W
W
W
1.0398
1.4932
-0.02513
0.1704
-0.04181
1.2914
-0.1887
0.0267
1.0842
0.08994
—
n/a
W, D
D, W
W, D
0.2764
n/a
0.3052
2.0035
0.001629
0.04958
-0.2658
-0.3302
-0.1949
0.3044
0.6556
-0.1075
-0.01215
0.1503
-0.6295
-0.148
n/a
0.07019
0.4472
-0.2615
-0.4126
-0.8838
-0.6653
-1.5116
0.945
-0.295
-1.1374
0.2245
0.3029
0.7096
0.05624
-0.6474
-0.6362
5.1896
0.4955
0.1353
1.0544
0.1523
0.2691
-2.8285
-0.458
-0.4043
-0.1607
0.0768
-0.4984
0.5737
-0.3223
-0.3652
0.3799
-0.2152
0.4924
-0.1904
-0.7504
-0.583
-2.6949
2.583
D, F
D, F
D
F, D
D
D, F
D
D
D
F
—
D
—
F, D, W
F, D
—
F
F, W
F
F
D
D
D
—
—
D
—
—
Paddyfield Warbler
Blyth’s Reed-warbler
Marsh Warbler
Eurasian Reed-warbler
Great Reed-warbler
Olivaceous Warbler
Olive-tree Warbler
Icterine Warbler
Melodious Warbler
Subalpine Warbler
Orphean Warbler
Barred Warbler
Lesser Whitethroat
Common Whitethroat
Garden Warbler
Greenish Warbler
Bonelli’s Warbler
Wood Warbler
Willow Warbler
Spotted Flycatcher
Red-breasted Flycatcher
Semi-collared Flycatcher
Collared Flycatcher
European Pied Flycatcher
Eurasian Golden-oriole
Red-backed Shrike
Lesser Grey Shrike
Woodchat Shrike
Rosy Starling
Common Rosefinch
Ortolan Bunting
Rustic Bunting
Black-headed Bunting
58