Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from People and Nature
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
People and Nature. 2025;00:1–14.
|
1wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pan3
Received: 26 April 2024
|
Accepted: 22 January 2025
DOI: 10.1002/pan3.70021
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Achieving Sustainable and Equitable Consumption of Wild Meat
How uneven access shapes the socio- economic and
environmental potential of game meat value chains:
The case of legal game meat in Zambia
Brock Bersaglio1 | Charis Enns2 | Edgar Hichoonga3 | Francis Masse4 |
Matt Sommerville5 | Nathalie van Vliet3
This is an op en access article under the ter ms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which pe rmits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provide d the original wor k is properly cited.
© 2025 The Author(s). People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.
1IDD- School of Government, Muirhe ad
Tower, Universit y of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK
2Global Development Institute, The
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
3Center for International Forestry
Research–World Agroforestry (CIFOR-
ICRAF): Jalan CIFOR , Bogor, Indonesia
4Depar tment of Geography and
Environmental S cience s, Nor thumbria
University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
5Independent Re searcher, United St ates
Correspondence
Francis Masse
Email: francis.masse@northumbria.ac.uk
Funding information
SWM Programme; G lobal Challenges
Research Fund, Grant/Award Number :
GC RF_N F 94
Handling Editor: Daniel J. Ingram
Abstract
1. Game meat contributes to human nutrition, food security and sociocultural prac-
tices around the world. Game meat also comes with risks, including overharvest-
ing and zoonotic and food- borne disease. These may be pronounced where game
meat travels along complex value chains from rural to urban areas. Formalising
and improving regulation of the game meat value chain is one approach to miti-
gating risks.
2. Focussing on the game meat value chain in Zambia, this study conducted semi-
structured interviews with government and other regulatory industry actors
(n = 9); game ranchers (n = 31), the largest producers of legal game meat locally;
licensed resident hunters (n = 20); retailers selling game meat (n = 25); and retail-
ers not selling game meat (n = 15).
3. Zambia is supporting the regulation of the game meat sector to respond to exist-
ing demand and reduce illegal hunting, mitigate public health risks and support
wider socio- economic development. Our study sought to understand how the
sector has changed, which actors are involved in what value chain activities, and
barriers to participating in and benefiting from the value chain.
4. Drawing from political ecology, our analysis was informed by the concept of ac-
cess, which describes the ability to benefit from things, including land, resources
and the institutions and regulations that govern these. Because access is inter-
connected to wider social and power relations, centring access offers further in-
sights into who has access to what game meat value chain activities, why and
what the potential implications are for biodiversity conservation, socio- economic
development and public health.
5. Despite recent improvements in the game meat sector, access to the value chain
remains uneven, with existing ranches benefiting most and populations likely to
benefit from game meat for food security, nutrition and other subsistence pur-
poses facing the greatest barriers. There also continues to be significant unmet
2
|
BERSAGLIO et al.
1 | INTRODUC TION
Game meat1 is an impor tant component of diets around the wor ld . It
plays a significant role in human nutrition and, in many contexts, is
essential to food securit y (Alves & van Vliet, 2017; Booth et al., 2021;
Ingram, 2020). Hunting for game meat occurs for other reasons as
well, including generating income, protecting crops and livelihoods,
regulating wildlife populations, and for culture and sport (Coad
et al., 2010; Endamana et al., 2016; Luskin et al., 2014 ; Vasco &
Sirén, 2016). In some contexts, the right to harvest and hunt is vital
for Indigenous self- determination and food sovereignty
(Daigle, 2019).
Despite its prevalence, there are widespread concerns about the
sustainability and safety of game meat, especially as demand con-
tinues to grow in many areas whilst the biodiversity crisis worsens
(Cardoso et al., 2021; Ingram, 2020). Where there is high demand in
urban centres, game meat sourced in rural areas may be processed
along complex value chains (Saayman et al., 2018). As with domestic
meat value chains, complex game meat value chains may be associ-
ated with public health concerns such as zoonotic and foodborne
illnesses (van Vliet et al., 2022).
In response to the challenges, two divergent pathways have
been pursued. Some countries have attempted to mitigate risk
by banning game meat trade altogether, such as China in the
wake of the COVID- 19 pandemic (Koh et al., 2021) and Nigeria
(Ewokor, 2022) in response to Mpox. Others have taken measures
to im prove the regul ation of game meat trade, with the aim of pre-
venting ‘…the use and trade of slowly reproducing, endangered
species or those with high zoonotic potential … while permitting
use and trade of faster- growing species with high potential for
sustainable management and minimal public health risks’ (Booth
et al., 2021, 1797). Several southern and eastern African coun-
tries have pursued or are pursuing the latter, including Namibia,
South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia (Denner et al., 2024; Kagembe
et al., 2024; Snyman & Mwale, 2022).
Based on southern Africa's experience, a growing body of re-
search purports the benefits of legalising and regulating game
meat economies.2 Alongside disease mitigation through improved
safety standards, there is also evidence from this region of envi-
ron me nt al and socio- e conomic be nefits. In So ut h Af ri ca, the gam e
meat sector has a net positive impact on biodiversity (Taylor
et al., 2016). Wildlife ranching in Namibia and South Africa report-
edly contributes more jobs than comparable sectors, such as agri-
culture, and improved non- salary benefits for employees, such as
housing and upskilling opportunities (Denner et al., 2024; Lindsey
et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2016). Properties used for wildlife ranch-
ing are also found to produce higher revenues than comparable
land uses, such as state- managed wildlife areas (Lindsey
et al., 2013).
Within the literature from southern Africa, however, the game
ranch has generally been the primary unit of analysis. In this article,
we broaden the focus to consider the entire legal game meat value
chain (see Figure 1).3 We present and analyse empirical data on
Zambia's game meat value chain, using political ecology to help
guide our engagement with the following questions: (1) what takes
place at different stages of Zambia's game meat value chain, and
who are the key actors involved; and (2) how has the sector evolved
over time and what barriers exist to par ticipating in and benefiting
from the value chain? Our engagement with these questions reveals
how socio- economic differentiation and power relations within the
game meat sector can influence who is able to participate in the
value chain, how benefits are distributed along the value chain, and
ultimately, the sector's ability to support inclusive and sustainable
use.
A key finding is that although progress has been made to im-
prove the legality, regulation, sustainability and safety of Zambia's
game meat sector, there is significant differentiation in who is able to
benefit from the value chain. Notably, those benefiting most are not
1We use the ter m game meat to refe r to meat derived f rom any wild spec ies—excl uding
fish an d insec ts—reflecti ng the language u sed by the governm ent and other se ctoral
actor s in Zambia. The t erm may ove rlap with bush m eat or wil d meat in some conte xts;
but, in s outhern Afri can, there ten ds to be a distinc tion drawn bet ween meat that is
permis sible to hunt and s ustai nably sourced a nd meat that is ill egally hunted
2In the re st of this a rticle, ‘game m eat value chain’ (o r ‘game meat sec tor’) i mplies legal
value ch ain activiti es. When illeg al or informal ac tivities are b eing discusse d, this is
explicitly stated.
3Altho ugh we refer to the legal ga me meat value cha in in Zambia, as Figure 1 shows, th e
chain is h eteroge nous and consis ts of various co mplex , differentia ted value addit ion
activ ities and relat ionships.
demand for game meat, raising concerns about illegal hunting and public health
risks.
6. Policy implications suggest a need to further develop frameworks to strengthen
the position of communities and customary institutions in the legal game meat
value chain, as this is where riskier forms of hunting and game meat consumption
might occur in response to unmet demand.
KEY WORDS
bush meat, game meat, political ecology, sustainable development, value chains, wild meat,
wildlife economies, wildlife trade
|
3
BERSAGLIO et al .
necessarily those who are most reliant on game meat for nutrition,
food security and livelihoods. As a result, there is a risk that con-
sumption falls back on game meat that may be illegally or informally
obtained and hunted and traded using less safe and sustainable
means. This article highlights how a political ecology perspective
can enrich research on game meat value chains, revealing how social
inequalities and differentiated forms of access along the value chain
shape who benefits from it and how, and raising pertinent questions
about the sector's ability to mitigate risks linked to the sustainability
and safety of game meat.
1.1 | A political ecology approach to game meat
value chains
Political ecology combines the concerns of ecology and political
economy to critically analyse nature–society relations and socio-
ecological outcomes (Watts, 2017 ). Political ecolog y is a broad field
that embraces a diversity of epistemological traditions to under-
stand how power relations shape and are shaped by environmental
processes and to pursue more just and sustainable forms of envi-
ronmental management (Bebbington, 2011; Robbins, 2020). For po-
litical ecologists, power and access—the latter defined as the ‘ability
to benefit from things’ (Ribot & Peluso, 2003, 153)—are entwined.
Power relations influence who has access to land, resources and the
institutions and regulations that govern these; and differentiated,
uneven forms of access feed back into and reproduce patterns of
socio- economic inequality. Analytically, access ‘brings attention to a
wider range of social relationships that can constrain or enable peo-
ple to benefit from resources without focusing on property relations
alone’ (Ribot & Peluso, 2003, 154).
We use these insights from political ecology in our value chain
analysis. Value chains are composed of ‘all the activities that pro-
vide or receive value from designing, making, distributing, retailing
and consuming a product (or providing the service that a product
renders)’ (UN Environment Programme, 2020, 11), and the acto rs in-
volved in supply, production, distribution, and retail up to the final
consumer (Barrientos, 2019). A value chain focus facilitates exam-
ination of the actors and activities within the value chain, and the
institutional, legislative and regulatory environment in which they
FIGURE 1 Structure of the game meat value chain in Zambia (relationships between actors indicated by arrows; consumers indicated by
dotted borders; regulator y actors indicated by green boxes; supporting actors indicated by white boxes with green borders).
4
|
BERSAGLIO et al.
are situated (Barrientos, 20 19). In this way, value chains literature is
useful for breaking down and examining who ‘who gets what’ within
local or global economies.
Recent studies on game meat demonstrate the variety of actors
involved in the value chain, from rural hunters and traders to mid-
dlepersons and transporters to (peri)urban retailers and consumers
(Enns et al., 2023; Nielsen et al., 2014; Pattiselanno et al., 2020;
van Vliet et al., 2015, 2022). This work has also devised methods
for assessing the volume and type of product traded, the added
value associated with different activities and actors, and the con-
tributions made by value chains to nutrition and food security (Enns
et al., 2023; Kagembe et al., 2024; Nielsen et al., 2018; van Vliet
et al., 2019).
Although references to power are widespread in value chains
research at large, ‘the concept is rarely explicitly defined, [and] is
not systematically analyzed’ (Dallas et al., 2019, 667). This trend is
apparent in research specifically focused on game meat value chains.
There has been little attention paid to how socio- economic differ-
entiation and power relations within the sector constrain or enable
people to access and benefit from game meat resources. Inspired
by relevant analyses of commodity, supply and value chains within
political ecology or that integrate a political ecology- perspective
on power (e.g. Amuzu et al., 2022; Neimark et al., 2019; Neimark &
Healy, 2018), we draw attention to how power and socio- economic
difference mediate access to the value chain and consider what the
implications are for equity and sustainability in the sector.
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Data collection
We adapted an established approach to game meat and wildlife trade
value chain research (Robinson et al., 2018; van Vliet et al., 2019) to
collect data on key actors and activities, prices, and quantities of
game meat, and perceived changes in the value chain in Zambia over
time. We used a combination of semi- structured inter views with key
stakeholders and structured interviews with hunters, game ranch-
ers, and retailers to collect qualitative and quantitative data.
We conducted exper t interviews (n = 9) with stakeholders in-
volved in supporting or regulating Zambia's game meat sector. These
included officials in the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS),
Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW), and nongov-
ernmental and civil society organisations, including Wildlife Crime
Prevention (WCP) Zambia, Resident Hunters and Conservation
Association of Zambia (RHCAZ), Wildlife Producers Association
of Zambia (WPAZ), and Professional Animal Harvesting and
Management. These interviews provided baseline insights into key
regulations, challenges, and opportunities facing the sector, while
also enabling us to consolidate a list of actors involved in the value
chain.
Next, from Februar y to May 2023, we conducted structured in-
terviews with actors along the game meat value chain to understand
their roles, the scale of the chain, perceived changes in the sector and
common game meat handling and processing practices (Supporting
Information). We conducted interviews with producers and har-
vesters of game meat, namely game ranchers (n = 31) and licensed
resident hunters (n = 20), to understand ranch and hunting activ-
ities, the quantity and type of game meat sold, the structure of
the value chain, game meat handling and processing practices, and
perceived oppor tunities and bottlenecks in the game meat sector.
Game ranchers were randomly selected from the 76 ranches that
were members of WPAZ at the time. Non- WPAZ members were ex-
cluded from the study, as we were unable to obtain their contact
information. Further research is needed to understand any differ-
ences between members and non- members in terms of how they
operate, follow regulations and the challenges and opportunities
they perceive. Interviews with licensed hunters sought to quantify
the amount of game meat hunted, the proportion self- consumed,
sold or donated, the species hunted and where hunting occurs. We
also enquired about their handling, evisceration, transportation and
preser vation methods and any perceived opportunities and bottle-
necks in the game meat sector. We interviewed all 20 hunters who
are active members of the RHCAZ.
We also inter viewed gam e me at reta il er s (n = 25) and meat retail-
ers not selling game meat (n = 15). We used the list of legally estab-
lished game meat traders publicly available at the time of research
on the ‘This Is Not A Game’ campaign website, which included 15
businesses across the country—including butcheries, grocery stores,
restaurants and lodges—as a starting point for interviews with game
meat retailers. We interviewed 10 additional retailers selling game
meat and randomly visited 15 meat retailers not selling game meat
to understand why they do not. The structured interviews included
questions on how long they have been operating, species and vol-
umes sold, providers of game meat, types of clients, different cuts
of meat sold, how they are displayed, and butchering, handling, and
preser vation practices. For each group of participant s, we also asked
about how, if at all, the game meat sector has changed over the last
10 years in addition to opportunities, projections, and challenges.
2.2 | Data analysis
We compiled interview responses in the KoboCollect app that auto-
matically records answers and aggregates the data of fixed answer
questions from each survey to produce a descriptive breakdown of
how participants responded. For open- ended questions, we under-
took thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). We used an iterative
coding process—making use of both deductive and inductive cod-
ing—to ensure participants' voices informed our analysis. We began
with deductive coding, with our research questions guiding our
identification themes (Saldaña, 2021): What takes place at different
stages of Zambia's game meat value chain; who are the key actors
involved; how has the sector evolved over time; and what barriers
exist to participating in and benefiting from the value chain? We in-
ductively refined themes throughout this process, adding a theme
|
5
BERSAGLIO et al .
related to the sustainability of the sector. To validate our analysis,
we convened a workshop with DNPW, WCP, WPAZ, and RHC AZ to
present preliminary results for validation and prepared a final report
to gather written feedback from stakeholders.
2.3 | Approach and positionality
The authorship team includes Zambian and non- Zambian research-
ers with lived and learned extensive experience researching and
working in the broad area of conservation and inclusive develop-
ment with expertise in game meat. This research was conducted with
and in support of the EU- funded Sustainable Wildlife Management
Programme (SWM) in Zambia, with the aim of generating required
baseline data on Zambia's legal game meat value chain to guide
and track progress against its own programmatic objectives. Thus,
this work emerges from long- term partnerships and collaboration
between the co- authors of this paper and various stakeholders in
Zambia's legal game meat sector. This article represents a small part
of ongoing work led by SWM to support the inclusivity, safety and
sustainability of the game meat trade in Zambia. Producing research
that is embe dd ed in this larger pr ogramme of work reflects our com-
mitment to relevant and meaningful research.
Research ethics was obtained from the University of Birmingham
(ERN_20- 1400) with research permissions obtained from DNPW
and local authorities. Before participating, participants were pre-
sented with either a verbal or written description of the project and
details about dat a use and storage. We then obtained informed con-
sent verbally from all participants prior to conducting interviews (for
more on the use of verbal consent in Zambia, see: Steel et al., 2022).
3 | RESULTS
3.1 | The game meat value chain in Zambia
Zambian legislation vests wildlife as property of the state, meaning
landowners, including game ranchers, do not have outright own-
ership of wildlife on their properties (Graham & Ferguson, 2020;
Snyman & Mwale, 2022). The legal framework also makes a distinc-
tion between protected animals and game animals. Protected ani-
mals are wild animals subject to strict control that cannot be hunted
unless for scientific research sanctioned through a ministerial order.
Game animals are wild animals that are not necessarily threatened
or endangered and can be hunted for subsistence, commercial and
sport s purposes under the control of a licence or permit. DNPW is
responsible for the administration of the licensing system and other
regulations pertaining to game hunting. Licences specify the variety
of species and number and sexes of animals that may be hunted,
the permissible method of hunting, area/s where the licence can
be used, any seasonal restrictions, and the prescribed fee payable.
Animals that are categorised as neither game nor protected can be
hunted without a licence; the ownership is transferred and vested to
the person who captures or kills the animal in accordance with the
Wildlife Act, 2015.
Game animals can be hunted in Game Management Areas
(GMAs), unfenced private land (i.e. open game ranch), open areas
and fenced or partially fenced private land (i.e. fenced game ranch).
GMAs are protected areas under IUCN Category VI, allowing for
sustainable use of wildlife and resources. A hunting licence is re-
quired to obtain game meat from open areas, GMAs, and unfenced
private land. Game meat may also be legally obtained from fenced
game ranches, which are privately owned. In Zambia's leasehold sys-
tem, private land may be leased from the government for a maxi-
mum of 99 years. Most fenced ranches are located in the commercial
farming lands of Central and Southern Provinces (Wildlife Producers
Association of Zambia (WPAZ), 2021).
To obtain ownership of wildlife on private land, game ranchers
must fence their land, pay for wildlife within their boundaries at ga-
zetted prices, and apply for ‘game ranch status’ from DNPW. If the
applic at ion for a fence d ga me ranc h is approve d, certificate s of own -
ership over wildlife are issued to the owner who is then largely free
to utilise wildlife without applying for a hunting licence. Certificates
of ownership are renewed each year and game ranches are required
to submit annual returns to DNPW, which detail the population of
each species on the ranch, the number utilised for hunting and live
sale, and the number that died or were killed.
3.2 | Value chain actors
The game meat value chain in Zambia involves primary producers
and harvesters (game ranchers and hunters), transporters, retailers
(butcheries, grocery stores, restaurants and lodges), final consum-
ers (both rural and urban), regulatory entities and supporting actors
(Figure 1).
3.2.1 | Producers and harvesters
Resident hunters are individuals established in Zambia who hunt
for sport and personal use of meat. A minority of resident hunters
sell a portion of their game meat, thereby supplying the game meat
value chain. Resident hunters may hunt in GMAs where they have
been allocated a quota, as indicated in their resident hunting licence.
Resident hunters may use the meat for their own consumption, gift
or sale. To sell or gift the meat, the resident hunter must obtain a
certificate of ownership and a permit to sell (valid for 1 month) issued
by DNPW and transfer it to the person receiving the meat. In 2022,
out of the 2372 applicant s, less than 200 resident hunters were al-
located a hunting licence through the raffle- based system.
Game hunters are those who hunt in fenced game ranches. They
hunt on demand based on an agreement with the ranch owner with-
out any permit requirement from DNPW. Game hunters may be paid
by the ranch owner for the hunting service, but with processing and
selling taken care of by the ranch. Alternatively, a game hunter may
6
|
BERSAGLIO et al.
purchase an animal from the ranch and do the shooting, processing,
and selling. Ranch owners may also hunt.
Professional hunters and non- resident hunters mainly hunt for
trophies, rather than for meat. The professional hunter accompanies
the non- resident hunter on hunts in GMAs, where the non- resident
hunter has been issued a DNPW non- resident hunting licence and
has entered into an agreement with a Zambian- based outfitter that
has been issued a DNPW Outfitters Licence. Non- resident hunt-
ers hunting in GMAs are legally obliged to give a minimum of 50%
of their game meat to the local community where hunting occurs.
Communities cannot sell the meat received from non- resident hunt-
ers. It can only be locally consumed and cannot move into the game
meat value chain outside of this community consumption. Non-
resident hunters may also hunt in fenced game ranches. In this case,
they do not require a hunting licence and the agreement to hunt is
made directly with the game rancher in possession of an Outfitters
Licence for fenced game ranches. The meat coming from trophies
hunted in fenced game ranches is usually given to neighbouring
communities or game ranch staff.
3.2.2 | Transporters
Game meat is transported in different ways. Resident hunters, for
example, usually transport game meat from the hunting spot to their
homes in personal vehicles using ice- boxes, or they dry/smoke the
meat before transportation. In contrast, meat originating from game
ranches, which is more for commercial purposes, is often trans-
ported fresh or frozen in freezer trucks from the ranch to the re-
tailer—such as a butchery, grocer y store or restaurant. To transport
game meat legally from a ranch or a GMA, the transporter needs to
be in possession of a movement permit, obtained after a veterinarian
inspection of the meat by the DVS.
3.2.3 | Retailers
Consumers can purchase game meat at butcheries, grocery stores,
restaurants, and lodges. According to the DNPW, there were 56
registered game meat retailers. All game meat retail businesses in
Zambia require a licence to sell legal game meat, issued by local
councils and renewed on an annual basis. Retailers also require a
council licence for handling and dealing with meat. Butchers require
a health clearance issued by a public health officer from the council
or DVS, renewed every 6 months.
3.2.4 | Consumers
Rural consumers can obtain legal game meat in three different ways:
from non- resident hunters who are legally required to give the meat
of their trophies to local communities; through gifts from resident
hunters; and through gifts from neighbouring game ranches. Urban
consumers can purchase game meat from licensed butcheries, gro-
cery stores, and restaurants (see for e.g. Figure 2). However, Overton
et al. (2017 ) found that only 9% of households they interviewed in
Lusaka were aware of the possibility of purchasing legal game meat
as an alternative to illegal game meat, suggesting that a large major-
ity of urban game meat consumers could be consuming illegal game
meat. International visitors consume game meat in licensed hotels,
lodges and restaurants. It is also legal for urban consumers to receive
game meat as a gift from a resident hunter or a game ranch, provided
they receive a certificate of ownership.
3.2.5 | Regulatory entities
There are three main entities involved in regulating the game meat
sector in Zambia. DNPW has the mandate to issue resident and
non- resident hunting permits, certificates of ownership for wildlife,
permits to sell game meat, import/export permits for wildlife and
Outfitters Licences. DVS has the mandate for meat inspection re-
quired for ranches and resident hunters to sell and obtain movement
permits. Councils have the mandate to issue the business licence and
the council licence to handle and deal with meat.
3.2.6 | Supporting actors
There are two nongovernmental organisations that represent hunt-
ers: the Professional Hunters Association of Zambia and RHCAZ.
WPAZ represents fenced game ranches. The aim of WPAZ is to
foster the growth of the private wildlife estate sector and its na-
tional contribution to food production, job creation and wildlife
conservation.
WCP is also a key support actor. Founded in 2015, the NGO es-
tablished the ‘This Is Not A Game’ marketing campaign in 2019 in
collaboration with DNPW. WCP certifies and promotes legal suppli-
ers and retailers.
3.3 | Scale and evolution of the game meat trade
3.3.1 | Ranches
The largest source of game meat in Zambia is fenced game
ranc hes. There are 157 regi stered fe nced game ranches in Zambia .
Approximately 44% of ranches (n = 69) were producing game meat
in 2021 (WPAZ, 2021). Most of the 31 game ranches we inter-
viewed have been established for well over a decade, with 74%
(n = 23) established before 2010 and 26% (n = 8) established be-
tween 2010 and 2020 (Figure 3). The main activity across the
game ranches interviewed is live sales, with 24 ranches primar-
ily engaged in live sales compared to 71% (n = 22) also involved
in game meat production and sale. 35% (n = 11) of game ranches
interviewed s tarted selling gam e meat afte r 2010. Of the 22 game
|
7
BERSAGLIO et al .
ranches primarily engaged in the production and sale of game
meat, 23% (n = 7) report selling game meat on a daily or monthly
basis, while the rest sell game meat once or twice per year.
Together, the 31 game ranches sell 14.6 tons of game meat
monthly, equivalent to 175.3 tons per year. If extrapolated to the 69
game ranches involved in game meat production, this would amount
to approximately 390 tons of game meat produced by game meat
ranches in 2023.4 In 2019, approximately 103 tonnes of game meat
were sold from game ranches (WPAZ, 2021), marking a potentially
4Becau se hunting and ga me meat harve sting d oes not occur on al l game ra nches, this
extr apolat ed figure is not a re liable estima tion. It merel y hints at p otential prod uction
across g ame ranches in t he sector.
FIGURE 2 From left to right, photos of game meat products, prices, and marketing/certification paraphernalia in Lusaka, Zambia.
FIGURE 3 Number of ranches which were (a) established (indicated by green) and (b) initiated game meat sales (indicated by black) in
Zambia during the decades between 1980 and 2020.
8
|
BERSAGLIO et al.
significant increase in the amount of game meat sold from ranches.
Although the sample and method for estimation were different be-
tween our study and WPAZ's 2021 study, game ranchers confirm
there has been a significant increase in the production of game meat
in the last 5 years and since they began their businesses. Ranchers
also perceive an increase in the demand for game meat and an in-
crease in the prices of game meat.
The three top species of game meat sold are impala (Aepyceros
melampus), warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) and kudu (Tragelaphus
strepsiceros) (Figure 4). Ranches mostly sell directly to households
but may also sell to butcheries, restaurants, lodges and wholesal-
ers. On occasion, game ranches sell meat to local communities or
staff. The number of species sold is generally perceived as having
increased or remained stable (Figure 5). Part of the reason is that the
legal requirement s for selling game meat are perceived as having im-
proved, making entr y into the game meat sector easier. Ranches also
perceive very little competition in their game meat business, with
the majority stating that, other than illegal game meat, there is no
competition to their business. 29% (n = 9) of ranchers interviewed do
not currently sell game meat. The main reason expressed was that
their population of game is too small, but 6% (n = 2) of game ranchers
expressed a lack of motivation due to a lack of government support.
There is little processing or value added at the level of game
ranches. 45% (n = 14) of game ranches sell game meat as a full car-
cass, 4.5% (n = 1) in pieces and 50.5% (n = 16) both ways. The main
processing by game ranches includes skinning, cleaning, cutting
and de- boning. Most game ranches sell meat as a combination of
fresh (91%) and frozen (82%). Only 13% of the game ranches report
wrapping meat in plastic before freezing. A small propor tion of game
ranches process meat into biltong (9%) or dry and smoke meat (5%).
Approximately half of the ranches include labels with information
such as type of game, place of origin, date of packaging, weight,
price, and brand.
3.3.2 | Resident hunters
The contribution of resident hunters to the game meat industry is
much smaller compared to ranches because of the small number of
resident hunter licences and quotas allocated each year. In 2023, ap-
proximately 200 legal resident hunters were operating in Zambia on
a yearly basis, and the frequency of hunting was low. Among the
20 resident hunters interviewed (10% of all resident hunters), 85%
(n = 17) only hunted once or twice per year, and 15% (n = 3) hunted
less than once per year. The type of species hunted is determined by
the licence, not necessarily reflecting a choice or a preference.
The 20 hunters repor ted harvesting 33 tons of game meat from
the three top hunted species (buffalo [Syncerus caffer], impala, kudu)
per year, equivalent to 1.65 tons per hunter (Figure 6). If extrapo-
lated to the 200 resident hunters that may receive a hunting licence
each year, resident hunters would produce about 330 tons of game
meat annually. However, only 15% (n = 3) of resident hunters inter-
viewed sold game in the past year. Of the remaining 17 resident
hunters, 53% (n = 8) said they would be interested in selling game
meat and would have customers willing to buy it if they did. They
perceive the quota they are allocated on a yearly basis and the raffle
system for the acquisition of hunting licences as the main barrier to
selling game meat, as it inhibits a regular supply.
The small number of resident hunters that sell game meat un-
dertake minimal processing. 28% (n = 6) sell meat as full carcasses,
28% (n = 6) sell it in pieces, and 44% (n = 9) both ways. The main pro-
cessing includes skinning, cleaning, cutting, deboning, and drying/
smoking. At their homes, the meat is conserved in a freezer or hung
in a dr y area if dried/smoked. Half of the hunters who sell meat sell
it fresh, frozen or smoked, while 38% (n = 8) of them process it as
biltong. Most resident hunters (63%) do not label their packaging.
Those that do tend to report the t ype of game, weight and date of
packaging.
FIGURE 4 Percentage of game ranchers (n = 31) ranking a species as one of the top three sold.
|
9
BERSAGLIO et al .
3.3.3 | Retailers
Of the 25 legal meat retailers interviewed, 44% (n = 11) are butcher-
ies, 32% (n = 8) are grocery stores, and 24% (n = 6) are restaurants.
All but one started selling game meat less than 10 years ago, with
66% establishing their business after the COVID- pandemic in 2020.
This attests to the incipient and growing nature of the sector. 68%
(n = 17) source game meat exclusively from ranches, and 20% (n = 5)
source game meat from ranches and hunters. 8% (n = 2) source it
mostly from butcheries, and 1 impor ts meat from South Africa and
FIGURE 5 Percentage of game ranchers (n = 31) perceiving a decrease or worsening (indicated by black bar), no change (indicated by dark
green bar), or increase/improvement (indicated by light green) in the game meat sector during the past ten years (i.e. in amount of game meat
sold, demand for game meat, number of species sold, competition with other rangers, legal/regulatory requirements, and game meat prices).
FIGURE 6 Percentage of resident hunters (n = 20) ranking a species as one of the top- three sold.
10
|
BERSAGLIO et al.
Namibia (about 36 tons per year, mostly buffalo, kudu, and harte-
beest). These figures again attest to the primary role of ranches as
game meat suppliers. In general, grocery stores tend to have 3 game
meat providers, while butcheries and restaurants have 1 or 2. Supply
is heavily dependent on a few producers.
Customers of butcheries and grocery stores are primarily resi-
dent individuals or restaurants. Customers of restaurants are both
resident s and international visitors. 44% (n = 11) of retailers report
re- stocking only on demand, while 24% (n = 6) re- stock monthly, 8%
(n = 2) re- stock weekly, and the rest re- stock occasionally during
the open hunting season. The top three sold species by retailers
are impala, kudu, and warthog. The amount of game meat sold on
a monthly basis equals approximately 17.1 tons, equivalent to 205.2
tons annually. 52% (n = 13) of retailers receive game meat in freezer
trucks, 8% (n = 2) in ice boxes, and the rest do not know. Most re-
tailers (91%) sell meat in various cuts rather than as carcasses. 24%
(n = 6) sell game meat fresh, 32% (n = 8) sell it frozen, 36% (n = 9) sell
it smoked, and 8% (n = 2) process and sell it as biltong. The main pro-
cessing by retailers includes cutting, cleaning, deboning and drying/
smoking.
Like game ranches, retailers perceive little competition in their
business due to high demand for game meat and perceive the game
meat trade to have grown in the last decade. Nevertheless, the num-
ber of suppliers has remained stable, translating to a lack of supply.
Retailers say legal requirements for obtaining trade permits have
improved. Among the 15 retailers interviewed who do not sell game
meat, 53% (n = 8) would be interested in doing so and 33% (n = 5)
mentioned they are regularly asked by clients whether they have any
for sale, which again points to unmet demand. Not knowing where
to source game meat legally on a regular basis and unfamiliarity with
the administrative procedures needed to source and sell game meat
legally are the two reasons mentioned by these retailers for not en-
gaging in the game meat sector.
4 | DISCUSSION
In this section, we discuss how differentiated, unequal forms of access
along the game meat value chain in Zambia shape who can partici-
pate in and benefit from the sector. Guided by political ecology, we
understand these dynamics to be reflective of wider power relations
in society (Ribot & Peluso, 2003). We also discuss how uneven forms
of access along the value chain intersect with the sector's implications
for biodiversity conservation and socio- economic development—par-
ticularly related to illegal game meat—and highlight potential opportu-
nities to broaden access in response.
4.1 | Access to the game meat value chain
Zambia has demonstrated a high level of support for the game
meat sector over the last several years, including revising national
regulations to clarify the regulatory environment underpinning the
production and sale of game meat and promoting awareness- raising
campaigns to encourage consumers to shif t towards legal game
meat consumption. These activities correlate with an increase in the
price and volume of legal game meat being sold from ranches, along
with growing consumer interest in legal game meat.
Much of this grow th is being captured by existing game ranches,
which are typically under private leasehold rather than communal or
‘local’ ownership (Chidakel & Child, 2022, 8).5 Producers in this sec-
tor require access to enough land to sustain viable populations of
different game species. They must also meet the legal requirements
of participation in the sector, which may be costly; for example,
when fencing is required. New land for game ranching is prohibi-
tively expensive; leasehold land is relatively limited (Lindsey
et al., 2013); and the start- up and annual costs for a game ranch
amount to approximately US $1 million and US $128,000 respec-
tively (USAID, 2024). Moreover, 94% of Zambia is under customary
ownership (Manning, 2012) and there remains a perceived lack of
clarity on communal ownership of wildlife and a lack of mechanisms
for communities to engage in the game meat sector. This acts as a
further barrier for members of local communities to participate as
producers and, thereby, to derive benefits from the value chain
(Snyman & Mwale, 2022).
Other socio- economic barriers are experienced further along
the value chain. For example, legal game meat is transported fresh
or frozen in freezer trucks from ranches to retailers. Transporters
require access to specialised vehicles with a cooling system and a
movement permit, obtained after veterinary inspection of meat. The
transporter also requires connections to butchers or retailers that
sell legal meat at the appropriate price point and with health clear-
ance, renewed every 6 months. The economic costs and logistical
challenges of maintaining a cold chain from rural sources to urban
markets limit how community members and resident hunters can
participate in the value chain. It also makes it difficult for the average
transporter to enter the value chain. Similar challenges have been
found in Tanzania (Kagembe et al., 2024).
Finally, consumers also experience uneven access to the value
chain. Across Zambia, demand for game meat is growing and out-
paces legal supply and consumption—particularly in urban set-
tings. In Lusaka alone, estimated consumption per household is
2 kilograms (0.5 kilograms per person) per year, and demand is
said to be 50 times greater (Overton et al., 2017; WPAZ, 2021).
In 2019, game ranches were able to provide approximately 103
tonnes of game meat, representing only 9% of demand for the
sake of illustration (Snyman & Mwale, 2022). In a ddition to limited
supply, only a small number of retailers are licensed to sell legal
game meat, and most of these target high- income earners and
tourists. This means that low- and low- middle- income consumers
in urban areas and consumers in rural areas have relatively low
access to legal game meat.
5Nascen t commun ity game ranc hing initiativ es have st arted in Kain du, Simalaha,
Chitim ukulu, and Nya lugwe ( USAID, 2024), wit h at least one fur ther being dev elope d in
Nyawa Ch iefdom w ith support f rom SWM .
|
11
BERSAGLIO et al .
4.2 | Environmental and socio- economic
implications
Even as legal game meat production increases in Zambia, ongo-
ing unmet demand means illegal trade is rife, with an estimated
6000 individuals in the Greater Kafue Ecosystem alone engaged
in illegal hunting (Overton et al., 2017 ). Our results raise pertinent
questions about how barriers to access in Zambia's game meat
value chain interact with illegal and informal activities and with
what implications.
Initiatives such as resident hunter programmes struggle to im-
prove access to game meat for populations who would benefit the
most from a sustainable supply of safe game meat for nutritional
and livelihood purposes. The fees, requirements and unpredictabil-
ity of the resident hunter programme in Zambia put licensed hunting
beyond the reach of most of the rural populations within or near
source areas. These dynamics can engender negative perceptions of
protected areas and conservation approaches and a propensity to
engage in illegal hunting (Hurt & Ravn, 2000; Leader- Williams, 1996;
Wilfred, 2019). And, statistics from Zambia suggest no recent
significant decline in illegal hunting or overharvesting (Overton
et al., 20 17).
Persistent illegal and unregulated harvesting of game meat risks
undermining the biological ability of wildlife populations to repro-
duce, thereby undermining the sustainability of the game meat sec-
tor. As meat is sometimes illegally hunted from game ranches, this
also threatens economic returns in the game meat value chain and
the security of game ranches, their employees, and likewise, those
engaged in illegal hunting (Lindsey et al., 2013). Economic implica-
tions of illegal hunting for ranches may further limit supply as game
ranches in Zambia can experience up to an 88% loss in trade through
illegal hunting compared to other causes of mortality (WPAZ, 2021).
This is cited as one of the main reasons game ranches in Zambia opt
not to renew their status, further limiting supply (also see Lindsey
et al., 2013).
Additionally, despite efforts to clarify game meat regulation in
Zambia, notable gaps remain in legislation and policy. For example,
smaller species of wildlife, such as bats, birds, hares, rats, and squir-
rels, are not captured in Zambia's Wildlife Act of 2015. These feature
prominently in rural diets and can be hunted with few restrictions.
During our research, stakeholders expressed caution that some
hunters may take advantage of this by catching a higher proportion
of smaller mammals—up to the size of duikers. The types of smaller
species not captured in the Wildlife Act often play significant roles
in disease spread and ecosystem function (Lacher Jr. et al., 2022;
Williams et al., 2021). Therefore, understanding how the game meat
sector is interconnected to the hunting of small mammal populations
is a necessary step for assessing the full scope of its biodiversity and
public health impacts.
Thus far, efforts to improve governance of Zambia's game meat
sector reflect trends in other relevant sectors in the wider region
that have undergone similar processes—such as bio- trade and pros-
pecting, non- timber forest products, and timber (Amuzu et al., 2022;
Ingram, 2020; Putzel et al., 2015; Wynberg et al., 2015). While clari-
fication of game meat regulations and procedures, and formalisation
of value chain activities have allowed for growth within the game
meat sector in Zambia, our findings suggest that uneven access to
the value chain—reflective of social and power inequalities, as con-
ceptions of access in political ecology suggest—requires further
attention if the sector is to further address risks associated with il-
legal hunting and public health and feed into wider socio- economic
development. In these ways, our findings also feed back into wider
literature in the region and beyond, offering evidence- based insights
for improving and regulating the environmental and socio- economic
outcomes of game meat elsewhere.
4.3 | Possible ways forward
There are opportunities in Zambia to address these challenges. Key
stakeholders suggest that regularising the supply and production of
game meat remains a necessary first step. This could be achieved
through further streamlined and revised regulatory, legal and bu-
reaucratic structures to ease entry into the sector and increase pro-
ducers and retailers. The uncertainty created by year- to- year wildlife
ownership renewals remains a key barrier in this area and has been
blamed for discouraging investment by ranches (Lindsey et al., 2013;
Snyman & Mwale, 2022; WPAZ, 2021). With that said, the signifi-
cant increase in the number of stakeholders, including game meat
retailers, over the last 5 years suggests that progress is being made
on this front.
Zambia also has unique biophysical and environmental con-
ditions conducive to growing the game meat sector as a pathway
towards sustainabilit y. As Snyman and Mwale write, ‘There is enor-
mous scope for wildlife ranching in Zambia due to the availability of
land, high diversity of wildlife and low potential for commercial live-
stock production’ (2022, 46). Wildlife ranching is an appropriate and
feasible land use option in that it: can be done on land marginal for
agriculture and livestock; can be combined with these activities for
increased resilience in rural areas, especially during droughts; and,
in Zambia, has been shown to generate similar or more income per
kilogram of biomass than livestock (Lindsey et al., 2013; Snyman &
Mwale, 2022).
Research points to the untapped potential for growing game
meat production outside private land and GMAs, which currently
provide most of the sector's land base (Snyman & Mwale, 2022;
WPA Z, 2021). There is considerable spatial overlap between high-
potential areas of game production and communal lands in Zambia,
with many GMAs overlapping with customar y and communal land
areas (Davis et al., 2020). 57% of existing game ranches also border
communal lands (Lindsey et al., 2013). As evidenced elsewhere in
southern Africa, bringing communal lands and conservancies into
the game meat sector has the potential to grow wildlife numbers
and help meet demand for game meat, reducing illegal hunting and
fostering positive attitudes towards wildlife and conservation (Coad
et al., 2019; Hulme & Murphree, 2001). Within Zambia, there is
12
|
BERSAGLIO et al.
similar evidence of game meat provision from ranches reducing ille-
gal offtakes from national parks (Snyman & Mwale, 2022).
Thus, one further important step is to build on recent governance
interventions that have eased entry and increased participation in the
game meat value chain for ranches, hunters and retailers and prioritise
the development of frameworks that strengthen the position of com-
munities, communal lands and customary institutions within the value
chain. This could involve formalising game meat production in existing
community conservancies and incorporating these conservancies into
the wider value chain (Grimaud et al., 2022). It could simultaneously
focus on clarifying and supporting processes involved in establishing
new community game ranches, which require significant investment,
land, and resources, including institutional, partnership and market
development. As our analysis and discussion suggest, such efforts are
conducive to filling gaps in game meat supplies, delivering safe and
sustainable products, securing existing investments in the sector—for
example, those associated with illegal hunting—and expanding the
scope of its positive environmental and socio- economic impacts.
5 | CONCLUSION
In this article, we analyse Zambia's game meat value chain to under-
stand its structure, including key activities, actors and changes over
time. Applying a political ecology approach, we examine how socio-
economic differentiation and power relations shape who can partici-
pate in and benefit from the full range of value chain activities and
to what extent. The concept of access within political ecology is in-
strumental to our analysis, as it captures the ability to derive benefits
from things and is understood to be interconnected to wider social
and power relations (Ribot & Peluso, 2003). Our results and findings
reinforce the importance of understanding access and the need to ex-
plicitly consider power relations in wider literature on the environmen-
tal and socio- economic outcomes of game meat value chains. While
improvements to Zambia's legal game meat sector are evident, there
remains significant unevenness in who can access the value chain, with
existing ranches benefiting the most. Populations more likely to rely
on game meat for food security, nutrition or other subsistence pur-
poses face the greatest barriers to accessing value chain activities. This
includes people in communal lands within or adjacent to game hunt-
ing areas, where riskier forms of hunting and game meat consumption
might occur in response to significant unmet demand for legal game
meat. With this in mind, understanding the implications of differen-
tiated, uneven access along the game meat value chain is crucial to
directing future action in pursuit of a more equitable and sustainable
sector in Zambia, across the region, and beyond.
Finally, we posit political ecology as a productive approach
for critically analysing value chains beyond game or wild meat. As
sustainability and livelihood concerns in resource- based sectors
deepen, political ecology provides a framework for asking what
the processes and dynamics are that mediate access to and across
resource- based value chains and their constituent activities, and
considering what the implications are for equity and sustainability.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors were engaged in the various aspects of the research
design, analysis and writing. M.S. assisted with writing and expert
insight. In addition to authorship, the research design was informed
through discussions with Zambian stakeholders through conversa-
tions and workshops, including government agencies and civil soci-
ety organisations. Preliminary results of the research were shared
with these Zambian stakeholders at a workshop, and feedback fur-
ther informed data analysis, results and discussion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the Editors and anonymous reviewers for
their constructive feedback, and all of the participants and stake-
holders involved in supporting this study and providing feedback.
Special thanks to CIFOR- ICRAF and the Sustainable Wildlife
Management (SWM) Programme in Zambia, WCP, and WPAZ. The
work was suppor ted by the UK's Global Challenges Research Fund
and Newton Fund (GCRF_NF94) and SWM. This work is dedicated
to our beloved colleague, Davison Gumbo, who served as the site
coordinator for the SWM programme in Zambia during the time of
this study. Tragically, he passed away a few months after this study
was finalised. His contributions were invaluable, and his memory
continues to inspire us.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
None.
DATA AVA ILAB ILITY STATE MEN T
The survey data for the article is available at the following reposi-
tory: h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 5 3 9 8 / r d . n o r t h u m b r i a . 2 8 4 1 8 0 1 2 .
STATEMENT OF INCLUSION
Our study was designed and carried out with researchers and au-
thors from different countries, including those based in Zambia
where the research was carried out. This includes researchers in
non- University institutions and at varying career stages. This en-
sured a diverse set of perspectives, expertise, and knowledge of
Zambian and regional literature, including relevant reports by na-
tional and local organisations. All authors were engaged in the vari-
ous aspects of the research design and writing. M.S. assisted with
expert insight and writing.
ORCID
Francis Masse https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7028-0616
REFERENCES
Alves, R. R. N., & van Vliet, N. (2017). Wild fauna on the menu. In R. R.
N. Alves & U. P. Albuquerque (Eds.), Ethnozoology: Animals in lives
(pp. 167–194). Elsevier. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / B 9 7 8 - 0 - 1 2 - 8 0 9 9 1
3- 1. 00010 - 7
Amuzu, D., Neimark, B., & Kull, C. (2022). Bittersweet cocoa: Certification
programmes in G hana as battlegrounds for power, authority and
legitimacy. Geoforum, 136, 54–67. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . g e o f o
rum. 2022. 08. 002
|
13
BERSAGLIO et al .
Barrientos, S. (2019). Gender and work in global value chains: Capturing the
gains? Cambridge Universit y Press.
Bebbington, A . (2011). Extractive industries, socio- environmental con-
flicts and political economic transformations in Andean Americ a. In
Social conflict, economic development and the extractive industry (pp.
3–26). Routledge.
Booth, H., Clark, M., Milner- Gulland, E. J., Amponsah- Mensah, K.,
Antunes, A. P., Brittain, S., & Williams, D. R. (2021). Investigating
the risks of removing wild meat from global food systems. Current
Biology, 31(8), 1788–1797. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . c u b . 2 0 2 1 . 0 1 .
079
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
Cardoso, P., Amponsah- Mensah, K., Barreiros, J. P., Bouhuys, J., Cheung,
H., Davies, A., & Fukushima, C. S. (2021). Scientists' warning to
humanit y on illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade. Biological
Conservation, 263, 109341. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . b i o c o n . 2 0 2 1 .
109341
Chidakel, A., & Child, B. (2022). Convergence and divergence in the eco-
nomic performance of wildlife tourism within multi- reserve land-
scapes. Land Use Policy, 120, 106252. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j .
landu sepol. 2022. 106252
Coad, L., Abernethy, K., Balmford, A., Manica, A., Airey, L., & Milner-
Gulland, E. J. (2010). Distribution and use of income from bushmeat
in a rural village, central Gabon. Conservation Biology, 24, 1510 –
1518 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 5 2 3 - 1 7 3 9 . 2 0 1 0 . 0 1 5 2 5 . x
Coad, L., Fa, J. E., A bernethy, K., Van Vliet, N., Santamaria, C., & Wilkie,
D. (2019). Towards a sustainable , participator y and inclusive wild m eat
sector. CIFOR. h t t p s : / / d s p a c e . s t i r . a c . u k / b i t s t r e a m / 1 8 9 3 / 2 9 5 8 9 / 1 /
BCoad 1901. pdf
Daigle, M. (2019). Tracing the terrain of Indigenous food sovereignties.
The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(2), 297–315. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 .
1080/ 03066 150. 2 017. 1324423
Dallas, M. P., Ponte, S., & Sturgeon, T. J. (2019). Power in global value
chains. Review of International Political Economy, 26 (4), 666–694.
h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 9 6 9 2 2 9 0 . 2 0 1 9 . 1 6 0 8 2 8 4
Davis, A. L., Blomley, T., Homer, G., Sommer ville, M., & Nelson, F. (2020).
Community- based natural resource management in Zambia: A
review of institutional reforms and lessons from the field. In The
USAID integ rated Land and Resou rce Governance Task Order u nder the
strengthening Tenure and Resource right II (STARR II) IDIQ and Nature
Conservancy. Maliasili, Washing ton, DC.
Denner, C., Clements, H. S., Child, M. F., & De Vos, A. (2024). The diverse
socioeconomic contributions of wildlife ranching. Conservation
Science and Practice, 6(7), e13166. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / c s p 2 .
13166
Endamana, D., Angu, K. A., Ak wah, G. N., Shepherd, G., & Ntumwel, B.
C. (2016). Contribution of non- timber forest products to cash and
non- cash income of remote forest communities in Central Africa.
International Forestry Review, 18, 280–295. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 .
1 5 0 5 / 1 4 6 5 5 4 8 1 6 8 1 9 5 0 1 6 8 2
Enns, C., van Vliet, N., Mbane, J., Muhindo, J., Nyumu, J., Bersaglio,
B., & Nasi, R. (2023). Vulnerability and coping strategies within
wild meat trade net works during the COVID- 19 pandemic. World
Development, 170, 10 6310. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . w o r l d d e v .
2023. 106310
Ewokor, C . (2022). Monkeypox: Nigeria bans bushmeat to prevent
virus spread. BBC News. h t t p s : / / w w w . b b c . c o . u k / n e w s / w o r l d - a f r i c
a- 61676841
Graham, J., & Ferguson, Y. M. (2020). The case of the “This Is Not A
Game” campaign in Zambia: An analysis of the messaging strat-
egies used to deter illegal bushmeat consumption. Psycholog y &
Marketing, 37(12), 1696–1702. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / m a r . 2 1 4 1 7
Grimaud, P., Gumbo, D., & Le Bel, S. (Eds.). (2022). Towards sustainable
wildlife management – An in- depth study for the promotion of commu-
nity cons ervancies in Zam bia and Zimbabwe. FAO, CIRAD, CIFOR and
WCS, Rome. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 4 0 6 0 / c b 9 0 8 2 e n
Hulme, D., & Murphree, M. (2001). African wildlife and livelihoods: The
promise and performance of community conservation. James Curry
Ltd.
Hurt, R., & Ravn, P. (2000). Hunting and its benefits: An overview of
hunting in Africa with special reference to Tanzania. In Wildlife con-
servation by sustainable use (pp. 295–313). Springer Netherlands.
h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 9 4 - 0 1 1 - 4 0 1 2 - 6 _ 1 5
Ingram, D. J. (2020). Wild meat in changing times. Journal of Ethnobiology,
40(2), 117–130. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 9 9 3 / 0 2 7 8 - 0 7 7 1 - 4 0 . 2 . 1 1 7
Kagembe, Q., Lee, M. A ., Blackmore, E., Compton, J., & TRAFFIC. (2024).
From bush to butcher y: An analysis of the game meat value chain
in northern Tanzania. h t t p s : / / w w w . t r a f f i c . o r g / s i t e / a s s e t s / f i l e s /
2 4 3 5 8 / b u s h - t o - b u t c h e r y - v s i n g l e - f i n a l - 1 . p d f
Koh, L. P., Li, Y., & Lee, J. S. H. (2021). The value of China's ban on wildlife
trade and consumption. Nature Sustainability, 4(1), 2–4. h t t p s : / / d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 8 9 3 - 0 2 0 - 0 0 6 7 7 - 0
Lacher, T. E., Jr., Mallon, D., Kennerley, R. J., Relton, C., & Young, R. P.
(2022). Tools and metrics for species prioritization for conservation
planning and action: Case studies for antelopes and small mammals.
Diversit y, 14(9), 704. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / d 1 4 0 9 0 7 0 4
Leader- Williams, N. (1996). Monitoring law enforcement and illegal
activities. In Studying elephants (pp. 148– 161). African Wildlife
Foundation.
Lindsey, P. A., Barnes, J., Nyirenda, V., Pumfrett, B., Tambling, C. J.,
Taylor, W. A., & Rolfes, M. T. S. (2013). The Zambian wildlife ranch-
ing industry: Scale, associated benefits, and limitations affecting its
development. PLoS One, 8(12), e81761. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 3 7 1 /
journ al. pone. 0081761
Luskin, M. S., Christina, E. D., Kelley, L. C., & Potts, M. D. (2014). Modern
hunting practices and wild meat trade in the oil palm plantation-
dominated landscapes of Sumatra, Indonesia. Human Ecology, 42,
35–45. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 7 4 5 - 0 1 3 - 9 6 0 6 - 8
Manning, I. P. A. (2012). The landsafe socioecologic al development
model for the customary commons of Zambia: Evolution and for-
malization. Natural Resources Journal, 52(1),195–214. https:// www.
j s t o r . o r g / s t a b l e / 2 4 8 8 9 6 0 2
Neimark, B., Osterhoudt, S., Alter, H., & Gradinar, A. (2019). A new
sustainability model for measuring changes in power and ac-
cess in global commodity chains: Through a smallholder lens.
Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 5 7 / s 4 1 5 9
9 - 0 1 8 - 0 1 9 9 - 0
Neimark, B. D., & Healy, T. M. (2018). Small- scale commodity frontiers:
The bioeconomy value chain of castor oil in Madagascar. Journal
of Agrarian Change, 18(3), 632–657. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j o a c .
12231
Nielsen, M. R., Jacobsen, J. B., & Thorsen, B. J. (2014). Factors determin-
ing the choice of hunting and trading bushmeat in the Kilombero
Valley, Tanzania. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 382–391. h t t p s : / / d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / c o b i . 1 2 1 9 7
Nielsen, M. R ., Meilby, H., Smith- Hall, C., Pouliot, M ., & Treue, T.
(2018). The importance of wild meat in the global south. Ecological
Economics, 146 , 696–705 h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . e c o l e c o n . 2 0 1 7 .
12. 018
Overton, J., Davies, S., Nguluka, L ., Chibeya, D., Nsende, E., Sompa, B.,
Simukonda, C., & Lindsey, P. (2017). The illegal bushmeat trade in the
Greater Kafue Ecosystem, Zambia–Drivers, impacts and potential solu-
tions. FAO/Department of National Parks and Wildlife/Panthera/
Game Rangers International.
Pattiselanno, F., Lloyd, J. K., Sayer, J., Boedhihar tono, A. K., & Arobaya,
A. Y. (2020). Wild meat trade chain on the bird's head peninsula
of Wes t Papua Province, Indonesia. Journal of Ethnobiology, 40(2),
202–217. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 9 9 3 / 0 2 7 8 - 0 7 7 1 - 4 0 . 2 . 2 0 2
Putzel, L., Kelly, A. B., Cerutti, P. O., & Ar tati, Y. (2015). Formalization as
development in land and natural resource policy. Society & Natural
Resources, 28(5), 453–472. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 8 9 4 1 9 2 0 .
2015. 1014608
14
|
BERSAGLIO et al.
Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural Sociology, 68(2),
153–181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1549- 0831. 2003. tb001 33. x
Robbins, P. (2020). Political ecology: A critical introduction. John Wiley &
Sons.
Robinson, J. E., Fraser, I. M., John, F. A. S., Randrianantoandro, J. C.,
Andriantsimanarilafy, R. R ., Razafimanahaka, J. H., & Roberts, D. L.
(2018). Wildlife supply chains in Madagascar from local collection
to global export. Biological Conservation, 226, 144–152. h t t p s : / / d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . b i o c o n . 2 0 1 8 . 0 7 . 0 2 7
Sa ay man , M ., van de r Mer we, P., & Saay ma n, A . (2 01 8) . The econ om ic im-
pact of trophy hunting in the South African wildlife industry. Global
Ecology and Conservation, 16, e0 0510. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j .
g e c c o . 2 0 1 8 . e 0 0 5 1 0
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.).
SAGE.
Snyman, S., & Mwale, C. (2022). State of the wildlife economy in Zambia.
©African Leadership Universit y, Kigali, Rwanda.
Steel, E. A., Bwembelo, L., Mulani, A., Siamutondo, A. L. M., Banda,
P., Gumbo, D., & Ickowit z, A. (2022). Wild foods from forests:
Quantities collected across Zambia. People and Nature, 4(5), 1159–
1175. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / p a n 3 . 1 0 3 6 7
Taylor, W. A., Lindsey, P. A., & Davies- Mostert, H. (2016). An assessment
of the economic, social and conservation value of the wildlife ranching
indust ry and its potentia l to suppor t the green economy i n South Africa.
The Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg, South Afric a.
UN Environment Programme. (2020). Sustainability and circularity in the
textile value chain- Global Stocktaking. Nairobi, Kenya.
USAID. (2024). USAID Integrated Land and Resource Governance (ILRG):
Lessons Learned for Community Game Ranching in Zambia. Issue Brief.
Vasco, C., & Sirén, A. (2016). Correlates of wildlife hunting in indigenous
communities in the Pastaza province, Ecuadorian Amazonia. Animal
Conservation, 19, 422–429. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / a c v . 1 2 2 5 9
van Vliet , N., Muhindo, J., Nyumu, J., Enns, C., Massé, F., Bersaglio, B.,
& Nasi, R. (2022). Understanding factors that shape exposure to
zoonotic and food- borne diseases across wild meat trade chains.
Human Ecology, 50(6), 983–995. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 7 4 5 -
022- 00361 - 1
van Vliet, N., Muhindo, J., Nyumu, J. K., & Nasi, R. (2019). From the forest
to the dish: A comprehensive study of the wildmeat value chain in
Yangambi, Democratic Republic of Congo. Frontiers in Ecology and
Evolution, 7, 132. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 8 9 / f e v o . 2 0 1 9 . 0 0 1 3 2
van Vliet, N., Quiceno, M. P., Cruz, D., de Aquino, L. J. N., Yagüe, B.,
Schor, T., Hernandez, S., & Nasi, R. (2015). Bushmeat networks link
the forest to urban areas in the trifrontier region between Brazil,
Colombia, and Peru. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 21. h t t p : / / d x . d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 5 7 5 1 / E S - 0 7 7 8 2 - 2 0 0 3 2 1
Watts, M. (2017). Political ecology. In A companion to economic geography
(pp. 257–274). Wiley.
Wildlife Producers Association of Zambia (WPAZ). (2021). A snapshot of
the status of Zambia's Private Wildlife Estate Industry. Lusaka, Zambia.
Wilfred, P. (2019). The challenges facing resident hunting in western
Tanzania: The c ase of the Ugalla ecosystem. European Journal
of Wildlife Research, 65(6), 86. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 3 4
4 - 0 1 9 - 1 3 2 2 - 2
Williams, E. P., Spruill- Harrell, B. M., Taylor, M. K., Lee, J., Nywening, A.
V., Yang, Z., & Jonsson, C. B. (2021). Common themes in zoonotic
spillover and disease emergence: Lessons learned from bat- and
rodent- borne RNA viruses. Viruses, 13 (8), 1509. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 .
3 3 9 0 / v 1 3 0 8 1 5 0 9
Wynberg, R., L aird, S., Van Niekerk, J., & Kozanayi, W. (2015).
Formalization of the natural product trade in southern Africa:
Unintended consequences and policy blurring in biotrade and bi-
oprospecting. Society & Natural Resources, 28(5), 559–574. ht tp s ://
d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 8 9 4 1 9 2 0 . 2 0 1 5 . 1 0 1 4 6 0 4
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the
Suppor ting Information section at the end of this article.
Supporting Information S1. Game ranchers Guide.
Supporting Information S2. Hunters Guide.
Supporting Information S3. Retailers Guide.
How to cite this article: Bersaglio, B., Enns, C., Hichoonga, E.,
Masse, F., Sommer ville, M., & van Vliet, N. (2025). How
uneven access shapes the socio- economic and
environmental potential of game meat value chains: The case
of legal game meat in Zambia. People and Nature, 00, 1–1 4 .
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70021
