A woman cutting up cooked wild meat. Axel Fassio/CIFOR-ICRAF/Flickr
Pastoralist communities, their livestock and diverse wildlife species coexist within a biodiversity-rich landscape stretching along the Kenya–Tanzania border.
However, at this wildlife-livestock interface, local communities face mounting challenges. Shifts in land use, prolonged droughts, erratic rainfall patterns and increasing land degradation are placing growing pressure on the landscape. In addition, conflict between people and wildlife is on the rise, and many households rely on wild animals for food.
Communities in the region eat a wide range of wild animals, from rodents, elephant shrews and birds to small antelopes and larger ungulates like bushbuck. This meat (“bush meat” as it is also popularly known in Africa) provides a valuable source of animal protein and minerals, especially where alternative domestic protein sources are scarce.
Although hunting and consuming wild animals is illegal in Kenya, this is not the case in Tanzania, where certain forms of hunting for wild animals are permitted. Yet in both countries, many people eat wild meat regularly, often without awareness of the risks. These risks include zoonotic disease transmission and potential impacts on wildlife populations.
Wild meat is a known source of zoonotic infections and disease spillover to humans. In fact, as many as three-quarters of emerging infectious diseases originate from wildlife. Illnesses such as anthrax, mpox, Ebola, and HIV have all been linked to close interactions between humans and wild animals.
Despite these risks, wild meat consumption remains widespread, with some households eating it daily or weekly. Preventing future disease outbreaks requires a clear understanding of these health risks, as well as the underlying social, cultural and economic reasons that drive people to rely on wild meat.
We set out to understand why people were eating wild meat along the Kenya-Tanzania border and whether they understood the risks of zoonotic diseases. Cases of anthrax have already been reported in this area.
Our study involved interviews in border communities during the COVID pandemic – the most famous case of zoonotic disease transmission in recent times. We wanted to know whether communities understood the pandemic’s link to wild meat and if this affected their consumption of it.
What stood out was that people at the border settlements kept eating wild meat or even ate more of it. This shows that economic necessity, cultural preferences and limited alternatives remain key drivers even when the world is in crisis.
Though this research was done during COVID-19, it gives us insights into how people react when things get tough, especially when it comes to food and health.
We found that several factors drove wild meat consumption, despite growing awareness of the health risks.
Economic factors, particularly household income and limited financial means, strongly influenced wild meat consumption, particularly in communities with limited alternative protein sources. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on local economies. Tourism, a key source of income for border communities, experienced sharp declines. As household revenues fell, reliance on wild meat as an affordable protein source increased.
Economic stability plays a crucial role in shaping consumption behaviours: 81% of those surveyed at the border settlements indicated they would stop eating wild meat if cheaper alternatives were available.
The type of animal
Perceptions of disease risks varied depending on the species consumed.
Approximately 79% of respondents believed that certain animals posed a higher risks of zoonotic disease transmission. Hyenas were perceived as the most dangerous, followed by primates and snakes. These findings suggest that while economic necessity influences wild meat consumption, risk perception also shapes dietary choices.
Gender plays a role
Men expressed more concern over conservation and health risks than women. Men were also more likely to advocate against selling wild meat. Women exhibited lower concern regarding zoonotic disease risks, including COVID-19. These insights highlight the need for gender-sensitive interventions to address wild meat consumption.
Education levels
Education levels also influenced risk perception. Respondents with formal education displayed a stronger awareness of zoonotic transmission pathways. They were also more receptive to conservation and public health messaging. This highlights the importance of education in promoting safer and more sustainable practices within communities.
National policies
Despite sharing ecosystems and wildlife populations, Kenya and Tanzania have adopted fundamentally different governance approaches to wild meat. This in turn shapes outcomes for conservation, biodiversity and public health.
Kenya follows a centralised and protectionist model. Hunting and consumption of wild animals are prohibited under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. This zero-tolerance policy is rooted in strong conservation principles aimed at protecting biodiversity.
However, in practice, it has driven the activity underground, creating a thriving black market. This undermines conservation and enforcement efforts. It also increases the risk of zoonotic disease transmission due to unregulated handling and consumption of wild animals.
Tanzania, by contrast, uses a decentralised, regulated slaughterhouse model. Licensed wild meat hunting and consumption is legal under regulation, particularly through game-controlled areas and permits introduced in 2020. This approach is meant to enable communities to benefit economically from wildlife and reduce incentives for illegal hunting.
The existence of two divergent systems across a porous border creates challenges. These include illegal cross-border trade, conflicting conservation objectives, and uneven protection of biodiversity. There are also difficulties in implementing coordinated surveillance or public health interventions.
The contrasting regulations in Kenya and Tanzania significantly influence wild meat consumption choices.
In Kenya, where wild meat is strictly prohibited, consumption appears to be through informal and unregulated channels. This increases health risks and limits consumer awareness. In contrast, Tanzania’s regulated licensing system provides a legal pathway for access. This makes wild meat consumption more visible and, in some cases, perceived as safer. These differing policies shape how communities access, justify and engage with wild meat, often driving cross-border trade and complicating enforcement and risk communication efforts.
Addressing the risks associated with wild meat trade requires a multifaceted strategy that balances health, equity and sustainability.
We suggest an intervention that prioritises economic stability and ensuring affordable alternative protein sources are accessible, especially in food-insecure settings.
Public health education is also essential. An increasing awareness of zoonotic disease risks can help shift consumption behaviour.
Because men and women perceived the dangers of wild meat consumption differently, gender-sensitive approaches should be integrated. It should also be noted that, although women are rarely the primary hunters, they are often prosecuted for possession or sale of wild meat. Gender disparities on how laws are applied must be addressed.
Legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened to address cross-border wildlife trade, particularly in regions with differing policies like Kenya and Tanzania. They should also reduce the risks faced by individuals who may unknowingly engage in illegal practices due to a lack of clarity.
We continue to work with national and regional stakeholders. This includes government bodies and technical partners who are actively engaging with us to co-develop One Health solutions. These solutions integrate public health, environmental sustainability and community well-being.
Finally, community engagement and participation should be at the core of any intervention. This will ensure that policies are locally relevant, culturally sensitive and supported by those directly affected to reduce the risks of zoonotic disease spillover.
Ekta Patel, is a scientist at the International Livestock Research Institute and Julia E. Fa, is a professor of Biodiversity and Human Development, Manchester Metropolitan University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.