Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Local communities and wildlife consumption bans

Nature Sustainability volume 4, page 1 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — A wildlife consumption ban, which China enacted in February as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been welcomed by most conservationists as a step towards avoiding a future outbreak of zoonotic diseases1. There are dissenting voices against this ban, arguing that wildlife generates multiple benefits for people who co-exist with wild species2. While both schools of thought have their own valid arguments, neither has yet to actively lobby for the free, prior and informed consent or consultation of the people who will be directly affected by conservation decisions related to COVID-19.

Throughout the years, indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) have been seen as either culprits of biodiversity decline or as ‘unseen sentinels’ effectively managing and monitoring their territories, which are often highly biodiverse3. This polarized view of IPLCs signals a prevailing lack of understanding of their way of life, where most of their dependence on nature is on a subsistence level. Wildlife consumption is often an essential part of their diets. A blanket ban on wildlife consumption may, therefore, exacerbate food insecurity in these communities. In other cases, IPLC wildlife consumption is more than just for subsistence. It may also have cultural roots and should be respected in that regard. Calling for education campaigns to ‘discredit engrained cultural beliefs’ that lead to wildlife consumption ignores the dynamics of cultural development and would most likely fail to conserve wildlife or fail to prevent another zoonotic disease outbreak4. What is needed is to craft bottom-up solutions together with the IPLCs directly depending on wildlife and to learn from their nuanced understanding of nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Butler, R. A. Conservationists welcome China’s wildlife trade ban. Mongabay (26 January 2020); https://go.nature.com/3pohgzZ

  2. Roe, D. Despite COVID-19, using wild species may still be the best way to save them. International Institute for Environment and Development (1 April 2020); https://go.nature.com/3pjRNYt

  3. Sheil, D., Boissière, M. & Beaudoin, G. Ecol. Soc. 20, 39 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ribeiro, J., Bingre, P., Strubbe, D. & Reino, L. Nature 578, 217 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hill, R. et al. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43, 8–20 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. AMBIO 43, 579–591 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Development Research (ZEF) Bonn, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Denise Margaret S. Matias

  2. Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Denise Margaret S. Matias

  3. Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Programme (NTFP-EP) Asia, Quezon City, Philippines

    Eufemia Felisa Pinto & Diana San Jose

  4. Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Programme (NTFP-EP) India, c/o Keystone Foundation, Kotagiri, India

    Madhu Ramnath

Authors
  1. Denise Margaret S. Matias
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eufemia Felisa Pinto
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Madhu Ramnath
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diana San Jose
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.M.S.M. conceptualized and drafted the Correspondence. E.F.P. and D.S.J. provided input. M.R. reviewed the Correspondence.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denise Margaret S. Matias.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matias, D.M.S., Pinto, E.F., Ramnath, M. et al. Local communities and wildlife consumption bans. Nat Sustain 4, 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00662-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00662-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing