2.1. Study area

The study was conducted in the Lusaka district, which is one of the six districts in the Lusaka province, Zambia. It is also the capital of Zambia, where illegal wild meat is consumed the most, with an estimated annual consumption of 1140 tons [16]. It is the largest city in Zambia. It has an estimated population of approximately 3 million [46]. It is located at −15.41° latitude and 28.29° longitude and is situated at an elevation of 1277 m above sea level.

2.2. Approach and design

Primary data were collected from October 2023 to February 2024. A grounded theory–based qualitative study [47,48] composed of in-depth interviews was used to gather data on the illegal wild meat supply chain and to create a sustainable wild meat trade framework. The interviews were conducted in English, Nyanja, or a combination of both. In cases where the interviewee was not fluent in English, a Nyanja field assistant acted as an interpreter.

2.3. Participant selection

The purposive sampling method [49], followed by the snowballing sampling method [50], was used to engage participants in data collection. The key informants were purposefully selected on the basis of their knowledge of illegal game and the game meat trade. The inclusion criterion was individuals with professional or operational knowledge of the illegal wild meat trade; the exclusion criterion included a lack of relevant expertise or refusal to provide informed consent. Snowballing sampling was repeated until the data saturation point was reached. In-depth interviews were conducted with 38 key informants. The interviewed individuals were selected mainly from key organizations that are responsible for regulation, control, and wildlife conservation. The interviews included those with government officers, country directors and focal points, project managers, consultancies, academicians, researchers, and butchers Table 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Key informants and the supply chain stage about which they were knowledgeable.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342396.t001

2.4. Data collection and transcription

The interviews were structured in three sections: general thoughts on the wild meat trade in Zambia, understanding the wild meat supply chain, and sources and destinations of wild meat. The interviews ranged between 25 minutes and 1 hour 40 minutes and took place in offices and over telephone calls. In-person interviews were recorded using a recording device. Phone interviews were recorded. Zoom/Microsoft and Google Meet interviews were recorded on a computer. In all these interviews, consent was sought first. Interviews that were conducted in Nyanja were translated to English before they were transcribed . All the interviews were then transferred to a computer for transcription. Artificial intelligence (AI) Whisper [51], which is a function that is embedded in the Python application, was used for data transcription. The recorded audios were input into the application, and Microsoft text transcripts were the output. The interviews were transcribed in English. To ensure transcription quality, all of the Whisper-generated transcripts were manually reviewed. The review focused on key elements such as completeness, accuracy of terminology, and contextual consistency. Any discrepancies were corrected manually. The output transcripts were then uploaded to Nvivo 12 for coding (data analysis).

2.5. Thematic content analysis

Grounded theory was used for coding as previously described by Goodall et al. [52] and Milstein et al. [53]. Grounded theory uses the inductive method of coding [54], which has the advantage of reducing study bias [55]. This is because inductive analysis primarily uses detailed readings of raw data to derive concepts, themes, or a model through interpretations made from the raw data by a researcher without the restraints imposed by structured methodologies or preconceptions in the data collection and data analysis procedures imposed by investigators [54]. This approach is used when not much is known regarding the phenomena being studied [56]. As the foundation of grounded theory, concurrent data collection and analysis were performed [57]. Constant comparative analysis using the iterative process was used for data analysis [47]. Coding was performed in three phases: initial coding, which fractured the transcripts. Intermediate coding, which weaved the fractured data back together again into an organized theory and advanced, which integrated the final grounded theory [48,47].

2.6. Distance from national parks (NPs) to Lusaka

The proximity of wild meat to end markets, whether short- or long-chain, may increase or decrease food safety risks [58]. Hence, the distance from the NPs to Lusaka city by was determined. Google search was used to determine the distance.

2.7. Ethical clearance and participant consent

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Tropical Disease Research Centre (TDRC/124/09/23). All participants were informed of the study objectives through a written consent form, which they read and signed prior to participation. To ensure anonymity, no names or personal identifiers were recorded on the data collection tools. Instead, unique codes were used for each participant. All the completed consent forms and data were securely stored in locked cabinets (for physical forms) and password-protected digital files (for electronic data). Access was restricted to authorized members of the research team only. The researchers faced one ethical challenge with one organization, whereby they had to pay for a research permit to that organization to interview their staff, and after the payment they were not given access to the staff, so they had to interview other suggested organizations by informants.

3.1. Description of the supply chain

To illustrate potential sources and pathways of zoonotic transmission, a description of the typical processes that occur from forest to folk were described.

3.2. Species

These were reported as the five most preferred and consumed species: buffalo (Syncerus caffer), kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), impala (Aepyceros melampus), warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), and hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious) Table 2. Buffalo is the most preferred species because of its close resemblance to cattle and its abundance in many protected areas. The other species were preferred because of their taste.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Reported sources of illegal game meat, hunted species and distance to market.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342396.t002

As reported by this informant:

“First, it is because of their availability, like the buffalo; second, it is also the taste, people like the taste. With respect to taste, the first preference is the warthog, followed by the hippopotamus. The warthog has certain unique taste characteristics. Hippopotamus meat also has very unique characteristics. So you find that seasoned wild meat consumers will either go for a hippopotamus and warthog if these are not available, they will ask for a buffalo”.

Regarding what determines the species that are most hunted, some participants said it depends on the locality and what is available there. For example, in Liuwa NP, in the western part of Zambia, the most common animals are wildebeest and zebra, and most of the carcasses and dried meat that are recovered by authorities consists of wildebeest and zebra meat. It was reported that other animals might be poached if they come across them, but usually, poachers would target something readily available in that location. In locations where there are different species, such as Luangwa and Kafue NP, they kill anything indiscriminately without really having to choose. The Kafue flats and the Bangweulu wetlands are specialized N.P.; most of the abundant animal species are kafue and black lechwe, respectively, and so they poach lechwes more than any other species in these areas. It was reported that recoveries that have been reported in Kafue NP were primarily sable and reedbuck, and these are the antelope species that are closer to community areas where they are likely to be poached. Another participant mentioned that wild meat is area-specific according to what is available in a particular area and how easy it is to catch that wildlife. The informants reported that the most targeted wildlife species are larger antelopes and buffaloes; consequently, logistically, it is more productive to shoot a large animal and leave the protected area than to shoot small antelopes, in addition, larger animals have more meat. Taking into consideration that the same effort and risk to poach an impala is almost the same effort to go and poach a buffalo; hence, they would rather poach a buffalo.

This study revealed the hunting of ungulates. The hunting of ungulates was previously reported by Eniang et al. [59] in Oban Hills, Nigeria; Van Vliet et al. [61] in Yangambi, DRC; Van Vliet et al. [62] in the coastal area of Guyana; Akpan et al. [20] in Lagos, Nigeria; and Masudi et al. [45] in the Nairobi metropolitan area of Kenya. Fa et al. [83] reported that ungulates were the most consumed species in Nigeria, followed by primates. Taylor et al. [84] highlighted that in terms of the biomass offtake, ungulates are generally the most prominent group. This also agrees with the findings of Staal et al. [7], who reported that ungulates, such as antelopes, tend to be the most frequently hunted animals and the most important in terms of overall biomass extracted. Woolhouse and Gowtage-Sequeria [85] reported that of 816 human pathogen species known to be zoonotic, the most important hosts in terms of the diversity of zoonotic pathogens supported were ungulates, followed by carnivores, rodents, non-mammalian species, primates, other mammals, and then bats. Bats and non-human primates are the most common species among those documented as leading to confirmed zoonotic disease in people, followed by wild rodents and, less frequently, buffalo and wild pigs (ungulates) [86]. In determining which mammal groups pose the greatest zoonotic risk to humans, Han et al. [87] highlighted that rodents and carnivores have high zoonotic potential compared with ungulates. This means that ungulates are lower-risk species. However, Kock and Caceres-Escobar [3] emphasized that without human case data and confirmatory diagnostics on zoonotic and emerging infectious disease pathogens transmitted or derived from wildlife species, it is not possible to determine with certainty the importance or risk of these hosts and reservoirs. This means that it is difficult to know without data the risk posed by the ungulates that are being illegally traded in Zambia, considering that most species have not been studied. Cooney et al. [88] stated that for most species, there is a need to increase the understanding of the risks presented by their trade to improve the management of impacts on livelihoods. This is important considering the high variability of markets, actors, and factors that drives the trade throughout the wildlife trade value chain.

3.3. Distance from source to market

The proximity of wild meat to end markets, whether short- or long-chain, may increase or decrease food safety risks [58]. A short chain is defined as a food chain that is less than 80 km long [89]. The following areas were mentioned as the major sources; their respective distances from Lusaka were also estimated: Kafue NP (348 km), South Luangwa (559 km), North Luangwa (773 km), Lochinvar NP (229 km), Blue Lagoon NP (120 km), Lower Zambezi NP (179 km), and Kafue Flats (46 km) Table 2. All the other distances except Kafue flats represent long chains. Wild meat is transported over this distance in the absence of a cold chain, increasing the risk of falling ill from a zoonotic disease after its transportation [90,91]. A cold chain is a system that keeps meat at the right temperature to prevent spoilage and to ensure food safety [92]. The short- and long-chain sourcing of wild meat was also reported by Reuter et al. [93], with wild meat being sourced from 10–700 km from the source. Van Vliet et al. [75] described the wild meat trade in Yangambi, DRC, as having a relatively short chain. Several reasons were mentioned as to why the reported areas are the most poached, including the size of the NPs, animal diversity, low security, easy access, and good road networks to some of the national parks.

3.4. Market

It was reported that there is a steady market for wild meat in Lusaka for household consumption. There are also many restaurants that have wild meat on their menu. Therefore, there is always a market, either for household consumption or for business. Large population, high incomes, and easy transportation on both roads and rails were noted as reasons why Lusaka is the major market for wild meat.

3.5. Sales

Once the wild meat reaches Lusaka, it is stored if the middleman has refrigerators; otherwise, it is stored in sacks or plastic bags. The meat is sold directly to customers whom they know. The selling of the meat directly without any market place/s reported in this study differs from what has been previously reported, market stalls and chopbars in Takoradi Ghana Mendelson et al. [60] wild meat markets, in Oban Hills Nigeria Eniang et al. [59], open markets and supermarkets in Suluwesi Indonesia Latinne et al. [82], wholesale, open markets and food stalls in Yangambi DRC Van Vliet et al. [61], wholesales in Lagos Nigeria Akpan et al. [20], retail and butcheries in the Nairobi Metropolitan Area, Kenya Masudi et al. [45]. The difference indicates the sensitivity of selling illegal wild meat in Lusaka, Zambia. The reasons behind the freedom of selling in the other supply chains might be as follows: the regulations allow wild meat hunting and trading; the regulations present contradictions or gaps Van Vliet et al. [61] or the regulations are there, but there is poor enforcement, and people can still trade illegally without consequences. Eniang et al. [59] noted that in Oban Hills, Nigeria traders were aware of the illegality of their trade yet economically compelled to continue.

Selling was reported to be done by both men and women. This practice was also reported by Akpan et al. [20] in Lagos, Nigeria, who reported that female actors generally outnumbered males in the value chain, with retail nodes specifically being female dominated in Lagos, Nigeria. Olunusi [43] also reported that female actors dominated selling in Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria. Hence, conservation efforts and zoonotic risk prevention strategies should be gender inclusive Akpan et al. [20].

The importance of relationships in the illegal wild meat trade reported was also highlighted by Boratto and Gore [81] in Pointe Noire DRC. During these distributions, no hygienic protocols are observed, increasing the chances of contamination. It was reported that many traders go to offices because they prefer to sell wild meat to people who are well-off because they can sell it on credit and then come back and collect the money later. Since it is illegal, they do not want to spend much of their time with it; hence, they prefer to sell it as soon as possible. The practice of selling game meat to restaurants, offices, and households was also reported by Borato and Gore [81] in Pointe Noire DRC. This practice increases the risk of falling ill from a zoonotic disease after selling wild meat, considering that handling and selling are unhygienic. The practice of not storing wild meat in the fridge, especially when it is dry and, in some circumstances, when it is fresh, increases the risk due to the lack of a cold chain [94]. It was reported that more illegal wild meat is traded than legal game meat. As reported by this informant:

“From what I can tell, the problem is there is limited legal game meat on the market. Hence, the demand far outweighs the supply, that is why we have a flourishing illegal game meat market, so there is more of the illegal game meat on the market than the legal”.

What was reported by this informant is in agreement with what was also reported by Overton et al. [16] and FAO et al. [95].

3.6. Consumption

It was reported that consumers may think they are purchasing certain species, but what they are purchasing may be something different. What consumers think they are purchasing would probably be kudu, buffalo, and impala, but what they are consuming can be something else. An instance was reported by an informant:

“Hippopotamuses, which were dying of anthrax, were not marketed as hippos but as buffalo meat. Sellers would lie to customers that they were buying buffalo. This is mostly because people love buffalo meat, and it is the reason why it is among the most trafficked and fraudulently sold wild animal meat.”

The consumption of meat from sick animals is a direct way to transmit disease from animals to humans. In 2023, twenty-six people developed sores on their faces, arms, and fingers after consuming meat from three wild hippopotamus carcasses infected with anthrax in the Sinazongwe district of southern Zambia Province [96]. This is an indication that poor handling and hygienic standards are not the only zoonotic vectors. Another example is the direct transmission of Mycobacterium bovis [90] as a result of consuming undercooked meat.

The issue of fraud was also highlighted by one of the key informants:

“We did a research and when we sequenced wild meat which was sold as impala meat, it was not even impala meat, it was a baboon. I am told they even mix wild meat with dog meat, so that is the danger of eating illegal game meat you can eat anything.”

It was reported that animals found dead in the forest are also skinned, dried, and mixed with hunted dried meat to make bundles and sell to people. The consumption of dead animal meat increases the risk of falling ill from a zoonotic disease. When an animal dies, it starts to decompose, and microbial succession starts. Microbial community succession continues until the carcass ruptures due to the presence of commensal microbes, air, and insects [91]. In the case where pathogenic microbes such as Bacillus anthricis and Myobacterium bovis are present, a succession of pathogenic microbes also commences. If an animal is not infected by any pathogenic microbes, the following ways may lead to carcass contamination with pathogenic microorganisms: insects, air, vultures, and carnivores, which may scavenge part of the carcass, wounds, and injuries [97,98]. The risk of falling ill from a zoonotic disease after consuming wild meat increases as the number of days’ increases due to microbial succession. This succession may lead to spore formation from bacteria such as Bacillus anthracis, which are difficult to kill during cooking or grilling, increasing the risk. Snared animal meat risks are greater than those of shot animals and lower than those of dead animals. However, this varies depending on whether the snare caused any injuries [98] and whether the hunter arrived while the animal was still alive or dead. If the hunter arrives when the animal is already dead, the factors discussed related to dead animals also affect the meat. Snares also have an additional risk of catching sick animals, which further increases the risk of falling ill from a zoonotic disease after consuming wild meat. Additionally, there are animals that escape the snares but become injured and die from infection [99], which also poses a greater risk.

The misrepresentation of meat species, as revealed by this study, is a risk. The risk is even greater if the species are high-risk species, for instance, primates [86], or those from a high-risk zone, which is a geographic area where the likelihood of zoonotic disease spillover is significantly increased due to various environmental, ecological, and human behavior-related factors [100]. Duporge et al. [101] highlighted that household surveys and illegal wild meat market surveys often experience the same problem where consumers or sellers do not know the species they are consuming. In a study done by Schilling et al. [102] in the Serengeti ecosystem, 30% of the sellers misreported wild meat species.

In regard to the method of preparation, the most common method that was reported was braising and boiling, which reduce the risk of falling ill after consumption of wild meat [81,103].

3.7. Sustainable wild meat trade framework

Informants reported challenges and made suggestions regarding the illegal wild meat supply chain, which were used to develop a “sustainable wild meat trade framework” Fig 1. in Zambia. Considering the socioeconomic needs of human populations, the framework can result in the sustainable management of wild animals to maintain their populations and habitats over time. The framework is explained below Fig 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Proposed sustainable wild meat trade framework in Zambia.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342396.g001

One of the elements needed for sustainable legal wild meat trade is regulations that regulate the hunting and trading of wild meat. Regulations are not included in the framework in Fig 1 because they already exist. As reported by this informant:

“We have all the laws in place. The challenge is implementation; you find that there is a law that regulates illegal hunting, but there are no people who are monitoring illegal hunting. They are not there on the ground.”

Holmern et al. [104] highlighted that law enforcement is crucial for curbing unsustainable and illegal exploitation of animal populations. Stricter law enforcement can also help create awareness among consumers [105]. Da Silva and Bernard [106] stated that, similar to any other developing nation, enforcement through the penalization of illegal wildlife traders is something that the legal system needs to commit to. Regulations and enforcement to address illegal wildlife trade in general are not considered a priority by entities responsible for enforcement agencies [1]. As a result, high penalties have not yet been applied in many countries [107] Zambia included, and stiffer penalties may provide stronger disincentives to engage in the illegal wildlife trade. The government also needs to have deliberate policies that benefit the local people, as highlighted by this informant:

“We should not run away from the fact that the wildlife is being hunted and that wild meat is being consumed in the country, so maybe there should be deliberate policies that should be put in place to allow people to access wild meat, of course with licenses at affordable prices for the local people. We know that there is trophy hunting, but most local people cannot afford it, that is the reason why it is mostly done by foreigners. For locals, authorities should reduce the license cost. I remember buying an animal during the hunting period and the cost was high, so if the cost is reduced, illegal hunting will be discouraged.”

Resources for law enforcement, judiciary, and other entities entrusted with stopping illegal behavior and prosecuting offenders should include funds for staff, supplies, training, enforcement, and judicial operations. In addition, they ought to be held to the highest standards of honesty and be granted sufficient legal authority to use all available investigative methods in the battle against corruption. Law enforcement personnel need to be compensated fairly to prevent corruption [108]. As reported by one of the informants:

“Funding is the main challenge; hence, employment levels in DNPW are low, community officers are few, and because the same people are underpaid, the officers end up poaching themselves”.

Governance of the wild meat trade could be made more effective by ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the human resources, legitimate authority, and financial resources needed to enforce national laws and tackle corruption [10,109]. This is not the case because of the under appreciation of the severity of illegal hunting in many African countries; as a result, protected areas do not have sufficient resources, making it a challenge to make conservation efforts successful [78]. ‘T Sas-Rolfes et al. [110] noted that wildlife resources are not properly managed principally because of a lack of resources for protected area management, thereby impeding effective law enforcement. As a result disabling the wildlife trade by relying on government institutions and their financial and administrative resources seems impossible [111] in many instances. Owing to low resource allocation in developing countries, illegal hunting is likely to continue [10]; hence, the government and other private and public organizations should invest more in law enforcement resources both human and financial.

Local communities and consumers can help reduce the illicit wild meat trade through community engagement by offering additional help for wildlife management [94,112]. They must also be well versed in local regulations concerning the trading of wildlife, the dangers associated with illicit commerce, and the preservation of species. Prioritizing justice and diversity is necessary to stop illegal trade and develop new conservation approaches. This entails adopting conservation tactics directed by indigenous people and respecting land rights [113]. One informant reported:

“The policies have to benefit the local people who are living next to the resources because if they are frustrated, they will also frustrate the government efforts in the conservation of wildlife resources.”

To provide different species with acceptable, sustainable, and legal alternatives to wild wildlife supplies, some have pushed for game farming, [114]. These actions could lead to a decline in illicit trade [1]. To fully pursue the possibility of game farming, increasing public knowledge can help prevent unsustainable increases in hunting in wild species [115]. Educational activities for game farming are needed [1,106]. Selectively bred variants on farms can also lead to a greater desire for commercially produced species that have appealing characteristics or health benefits, which may be crucial for attracting consumers who otherwise perceive captive-bred specimens as having lower value than their wild counterparts do [1]. In a previous study, Marescotti et al. [116] revealed that hunters preferred hunted products over farmed meat. Fantechi et al. [117] highlighted that consumers tend to prefer wild game since they perceive it as more natural. Hence, it might be challenging to convince wild game consumers to change to farmed game, particularly seasoned wild meat lovers. Regulations about captive breeding and propagation might need to be relaxed to encourage a profitable endeavor that helps the local economy and wildlife [1,105].

According to Can et al. [19], prohibitions are unlikely to eliminate illegal wildlife trade and associated public health risks. This is because such policy decisions have the potential to encourage illegal wildlife trade activity and can negate the values of human equity and sustainable development [114]. Unless they are backed by related human behavior, change initiatives aimed at lowering the involvement and dependency of those involved in both purchase and sale [19]. Government officials and specialists must spearhead initiatives to modify human behavior by utilizing best practices from social marketing, psychology, economics, and behavioral science [39].

Putting measures regarding the use of local wild meat while ignoring broader rural development policies that allow indigenous peoples and local communities to pursue alternative means of subsistence can exacerbate the already existing rift between communities and conservation authorities [118]. Because these communities frequently rely on wildlife for food and making a living, preventative efforts such as supporting alternative livelihoods (e.g., agroforestry, livestock, sustainable agriculture, ecotourism) should focus on reducing reliance on commercial wildlife markets and trading. These are preventative because they address the root causes (poverty, lack of options) that lead communities to depend on wild meat. To reduce reliance on wildlife markets and trade for revenue, local people and impoverished people in rural areas need to be the focus of alternative livelihood programs [1,12]. This informant reported that:

“There is a lot of demand for wild meat in urban areas because it is considered to be tasty, to be a healthy alternative to beef and other protein sources, and because of the high demand. It is sold at a premium price because of the demand and premium price at the end of the day they are people in rural communities, many of whom do not have alternative sources of income who turn to poaching as a quick way or a relatively easy way to make money”.

Another highlighted that:

“There are a few wildlife opportunities that are created for the indigenous people. You find that it is very easy for people with funds to influence the local communities to become involved in illegal wild meat hunting.”

Partnerships between local governments and communities are crucial to providing incentives for robust and persistent income streams that are independent of wildlife markets and trade [40,108].

Education could concentrate on pertinent legislation controlling the trade and exploitation of wildlife and the detrimental effects of commerce, such as animal welfare and zoonotic illnesses [119]. For any intervention to succeed, social and cultural elements need to be taken into account [120]; hence, both of these factors need to be considered when carrying out awareness and education campaigns. In other situations, although it is often lacking, political support is required for campaigns. Planning with local communities and stakeholders in mind is essential to maximize chances of success and efficacy and avoid the waste of resources, or worse, adverse social effects [1]. Social media can offer useful information about consumption trends and, by raising awareness and educating people, help alter attitudes toward illegal trade [121]. The communities also need to be educated on the importance of wildlife, as reported by this informant:

“The fact is they are people mostly in rural communities or living next to protected areas who are selling wild meat as a way to make money these people do not understand the value of wildlife and other resources outside of tourism.”

Hilderink and De Winter et al. [122] argued that conservation education programs are unlikely to influence hunting due to the cultural and religious connotations of wild meat; alternatively, they suggested health-risk education, which they noted has the potential to minimize hunting rates since it can impact the social acceptability and demand for wildlife products. Knapp [123] suggested that in areas where high educational costs are causing poachers to hunt, the creation of scholarship funds or price reductions for secondary education might be more advantageous than increasing anti-poaching patrols. The provision of scholarships can be a long-term solution because, in many cases, wild meat hunters are unemployed and have little education [9]. Importantly, the success of such efforts also depends on hunting reasons, where poachers hunt because it is part of their cultural heritage, scholarship funds or any other form of monetary assistance are unlikely to reduce poaching [123].

Some approaches have also been suggested to address the illegal wildlife trade. Fukushima et al. [1] proposed tools that can be used to address the wildlife trade chain through a wildlife circle trade chain. Hu et al. [124] proposed a theory of change for reducing illegal wildlife-based medicine consumption. Even though these are not frameworks, they present ways to address the illegal wildlife trade. The main difference between the referenced approaches and the one proposed in this study is the inclusion of bans in [1]. We agree with Booth et al. [125] on the impact of bans on food security, taking into consideration that more than 700,000 tons of legal meat in Zambia are consumed in Zambia [95]. Hu et al. [124] focused much on behavior change, which is imperative, as already discussed, but in the case of Zambia, there is a need for more. In summary, what also differentiates our approach is that it is formulated from in-depth interviews.

3.8. Summary of the identified themes

The actors in the sourcing stage are poachers from communities near NP and GMAs. They are driven by poverty, a lack of alternative livelihoods, and the provision of supplies (e.g., firearms, clothes, cash) by urban traders. Hunting methods include the use of homemade shotguns, wire snares, and dogs; snares pose a zoonotic risk because of delayed carcass retrieval. The species targeted are primarily ungulates such as buffalo, kudu, impala, warthog, and hippo, which are chosen for taste, size, and availability.

Processing involves several practices. These include skinning, evisceration, and smoking in forests or bush camps, often without hygiene or proper tools. The associated risks are as a result of the use of rusty knives, poor lighting, contact with blood and fluids, and exposure to contaminated soil, which increase the risk of zoonotic transmission. The time lag between killing and evisceration contributes to microbial proliferation.

Transportation modes include foot, bicycle, canoes, scotch carts, public transport, and private vehicles. With respect to packaging, meat is carried in plastic bags or sacks and is hidden in other products to avoid detection. Potential risk factors include cross-contamination from fish, dust, or other goods and no cold chain during transport.

The main actors in the distribution and sales include middlemen and urban traders; poachers rarely sell directly. Sales methods include direct sales to known customers, sometimes in offices or homes; no open markets due to illegality. Women are more involved in selling than hunting.

The potential consumer risks associated with consumption are a result of species misrepresentation (e.g., hippopotamus sold as buffalo) and the consumption of meat from dead or diseased animals. The common preparation methods involve boiling and braising, which reduce but do not eliminate pathogen risk.

The proposed sustainable framework is composed of the following components: community engagement, game farming, alternative livelihoods, awareness and education, and human behavior change. The goal of the framework is to promote safe, legal, and sustainable wild meat trade while reducing zoonotic risk.