Wild Meat Consumption in Tropical Forests Spares a Significant Carbon Footprint from the Livestock Production Sector

Background

Wild meat consumption is a widespread practice among tropical forest communities, providing essential protein and micronutrients. However, discussions about hunting often focus on its ecological consequences, such as defaunation and biodiversity loss, rather than its potential climate benefits. This study examines the carbon footprint spared by consuming wild meat instead of livestock products, particularly bovine beef, which is a major driver of deforestation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By quantifying the GHG emissions that would result from substituting wild meat with domesticated animal protein, the study explores whether sustainable hunting can contribute to climate change mitigation efforts.

Goals and Methods

The study aimed to estimate the amount of GHG emissions avoided through wild meat consumption and assess the potential carbon credit revenues that could be generated if these emissions were accounted for in carbon finance schemes like REDD+. Researchers analyzed data from 49 Amazonian and Afrotropical forest sites, where approximately 150,000 people consume wild meat. They compared two substitution scenarios: one in which wild meat is replaced by bovine beef (high-carbon footprint) and another in which it is replaced by poultry (lower-carbon footprint). The study then calculated the potential carbon credit value of emissions forgone under different pricing models, considering both optimistic and conservative market prices.

Conclusion

The results indicate that wild meat consumption spares approximately 71 MtCO2-eq annually if replaced by bovine beef but only 3 MtCO2-eq annually if replaced by poultry. These figures highlight the significant role that wild meat plays in reducing the demand for high-emission livestock products. Under an optimistic carbon pricing scenario (US$50 per tCO2-eq), carbon credits from wild meat consumption could generate US$3 million per year, while a more conservative estimate (US$20.81 per tCO2-eq) suggests potential revenues of US$1 million per year. However, the study also finds that 43% of the surveyed population consumes wild meat at levels below the FAO-recommended protein intake, raising concerns about food security and malnutrition in these regions.