Wild Meat Consumption in Tropical Forests Could be Converted into Carbon Credits, Controversial Paper Suggests

Academics have claimed the study “ignores” the risk of zoonotic disease from bushmeat hunting and seeks to “commodify” traditional hunting through tying it to carbon credit markets.ย 
Phoebe Cooke headshot - credit Laura King Photography
on
A controversial new paper proposes carbon credits be generated through the avoidance of wild meat consumption in tropical forest areas. Credit: pxfuel.

The eating of wild meat in tropical forests could generate carbon credits through avoided emissions, a new paper has claimed – but other academics have said the study shows the limitations of a โ€œcarbon-onlyโ€ approach.

The research, published in science journal Nature on Thursday, analysed studies conducted between 1972 and 2019 on the diets of around 150,000 residents from 49 tropical forest sites, including in Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Brazil, Peru and Bolivia.

Authors from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and Brazilโ€™s Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul found that communities consuming wild meat may โ€œspareโ€ the equivalent of 71 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year compared with a scenario where wild meat was replaced with beef, or three metric tonnes of CO2 per year if replaced with poultry.

The paper also claims that supporting continued sustainable wild meat consumption by these communities could help generate up to $3 million (ยฃ2.2 million) in carbon credit revenues, and incentivise forest conservation.

โ€˜Unsoundโ€™

Co-author Professor Carlos Peres said the results โ€œclearly illustrate the potential value and importance of considering sustainable game hunting within the REDD+ political process at both national and international scalesโ€. 

The term REDD+ refers to the United Nations framework to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the conservation and sustainable management of forests and forest carbon stocks. 

Under the United Nations emissions carbon trading scheme, developed countries are theoretically able to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by paying for carbon โ€œcreditsโ€, with each one representing one tonne of carbon dioxide that has been โ€œavoidedโ€ elsewhere.

However, critics have raised concerns over the environmental integrity of chosen projects, the difficulties of measuring carbon storage or assessing whether projects would have gone ahead without the schemes, and the low price of carbon credits.

Authors of this study claim that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has so far failed to recognise and incorporate subsistence hunting and the role of wild meat in forest governance.

But the paperโ€™s suggestion of applying carbon credits to bushmeat consumption has attracted fierce criticism from a number of academics.

Jennifer Jacquet, associate professor of environmental studies at New York University, described the study as โ€œabsurdโ€.

โ€œThe premise here is that we should pay people for eating wild animals, on the grounds that if they were not eating wild animals they would be eating cows. In addition to being silly, this is a very unsound empirical claim,โ€ she told DeSmog.

โ€œItโ€™s disappointing to see any conversation about the food system so exclusively focused on carbon and carbon markets,โ€ she added. โ€œWe have to consider a much broader range of issues about any food systemโ€™s impacts โ€” whether itโ€™s the impacts on farmed animals or wild animals, broader ecological effects, or, of course, the issue of distribution.โ€ 

โ€˜Carbon-Only Approachโ€™

The authors briefly address potential concerns from promoting sustainable bushmeat hunting, such as the risk of illegal hunting and the spread of disease. The paper suggests that rather than a โ€œblanket banโ€ on subsistence hunting and wild meat trading, hunters could be trained to monitor animal health and game populations.

But a number of researchers say the potential transmission of zoonotic diseases was virtually โ€œignoredโ€ by the paper, despite the probable origins of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic in animal markets, which have led to calls for a total ban on the wild meat trade.

Matthew Hayek, assistant professor of environmental studies at NYU, criticised the study for โ€œembodying the absurdity of a carbon-only approachโ€.

โ€œThe authors want to subsidize bushmeat consumption because it spares deforestation/GHGs?!,โ€ he wrote on Twitter. โ€œPandemic zoonotic diseases from bushmeat are an existential risk on par with climate change.โ€

Jan Dutkiewicz, a policy fellow at Harvard Law School researching large-scale conventional meat production, said the โ€œvery poor and myopic framingโ€ of the study had โ€œignored the zoonotic disease emergence risk of bushmeat huntingโ€ as well as seeking to commodify traditional hunting by binding it to international carbon credit markets. 

โ€œThis is based on the dubious assumption of emissions savings from not making an assumed switch to conventional cattle meat, the highest possible emitting animal species,โ€ Dutkiewicz told DeSmog. He added that the study only applied to 150,000 people, meaning the overall climate impact is โ€œvirtually meaninglessโ€.

โ€˜Major Opportunityโ€™

Peres rejected the accusations raised against the study. 

Responding to criticisms about the limited reference to the potential of wild meat trade for zoonotic transmission, he said the paper only attempted to deal with the โ€œspared carbon footprint value of wild meat consumption, rather than other ecosystem services or disservices, including any possible zoonotic transmissionโ€.

He told Desmog the authors had identified a โ€œmajor opportunity to implement local governance of sustainable wild meat hunting, which will otherwise continue to happen in any case, largely in low-governance tropical forest systemsโ€.

โ€œWe never say we should “pay people” to either eat or not eat wild meat, but this is a fact of life that will continue to happen in any case whether or not we like it,โ€ he added. 

โ€œWe are not promoting hunting as a carbon mitigation option, but only pointing out that this is widespread and targets extremely low-carbon animal protein compared to the livestock sector.โ€

Phoebe Cooke headshot - credit Laura King Photography
Phoebe joined DeSmog in 2020. She is currently co-deputy editor and was previously the organisation's Senior Reporter.

Related Posts

on

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.
on

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.
on

An emergency preparedness conference in Ottawa hosted two days of panels with only limited discussion of climate changeโ€™s root causes.

An emergency preparedness conference in Ottawa hosted two days of panels with only limited discussion of climate changeโ€™s root causes.
Analysis
on

The former Tory MP appears to have markedly different views to the magazineโ€™s owner, and chairman.

The former Tory MP appears to have markedly different views to the magazineโ€™s owner, and chairman.