Vulnerability and coping strategies within wild meat trade networks during the COVID-19 pandemic

Measures adopted to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and economic shocks caused by the pandemic have affected food networks globally, including wild meat trade networks that support the livelihoods and food security of millions of people around the world. In this article, we examine how COVID-related shocks have affected the vulnerability and coping strategies of different actors along wild meat trade networks. Informed by 1,876 questionnaires carried out with wild meat hunters, traders, vendors, and consumers in Cameroon, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Guyana, the article presents qualitative evidence as to how COVID-19 impacted different segments of society involved in wild meat trade networks. Our findings largely align with McNamara et al. (2020) and Kamogne Tagne et al.’s (2022) causal model hypothesising how the impacts of the pandemic could lead to a change in local incentives for wild meat hunting in sub-Saharan African countries. Like McNamara et al. (2020) and Kamogne Tagne et al. (2022), we find that the pandemic reduced wild meat availability for wild meat actors in urban areas while increasing reliance on wild meat for subsistence purposes in rural areas. However, we find some impact pathways to be more relevant than others, and also incorporate additional impact pathways into the existing causal model. Based on our findings, we argue that wild meat serves as an important safety net in response to shocks for some actors in wild meat trade networks. We conclude by advocating for policies and development interventions that seek to improve the safety and sustainability of wild meat trade networks and protect access to wild meat as an environmental coping strategy during times of crisis.


Introduction
Although the origins of the COVID-19 outbreak remain debated, it is widely believed that transmission may have first occurred at a market in Wuhan, China, where wild meat was sold (Zhou et al., 2020). Reports linking the emergence of COVID-19 to wild meat threw the wildlife trade into the global spotlight as a potential interface for the transmission of zoonotic diseases. This motivated proposals to strengthen regulation of wildlife trade, including calls to ban the commercial wildlife trade altogether. At the outset of the pandemic, 241 influential conservation and animal rights organisations, including the Zoological Society of London, Born Free Foundation, World Animal Protection and Humane Society International, released a formal position statement calling for the end of wild meat trade to prevent future zoonotic outbreaks and halt and reverse biodiversity loss (WCS, 2020). Governments responded to the suspected link between COVID-19 and wild meat trade in various ways, from closing wildlife markets in China to banning the consumption of certain species in Gabon to ramping up enforcement against unauthorised wildlife trade in Peru.
Alongside the growing stigma of wild meat consumption, measures adopted to prevent the spread of COVID-19 alongside economic shocks caused by the pandemic have had notable repercussions for wild meat trade networks (Kamogne Tagne  et  around the world who use and depend on wild meat 1 . Some have speculated that policy responses to COVID-19 resulted in the removal of wild meat from food systems and increased food insecurity (Booth et al. 2021;Roe et al. 2020). Others have hypothesised more complex causal networks, suggesting that the pandemic reduced wild meat availability in urban areas while increasing reliance on wild meat for subsistence purposes in rural areas (McNamara et al. 2020;Kamogne Tagne et al. 2022). So far, however, there remains limited empirical evidence concerning how these -or other -impacts have varied across different segments of society involved in the hunting, trade, and sale and consumption of wild meat.
In this article, we respond to the question: How have COVIDrelated shocks affected the vulnerability and coping strategies of different actors along wild meat trade networks? Informed by 1,876 questionnaires carried out with wild meat hunters, traders, retailers, and consumers in Cameroon, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Guyana, the article presents qualitative evidence of how different segments of society involved in wild meat trade networks coped with the multiple crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We use the causal model of the probable impacts of COVID-19 related shocks on wild meat trade developed by McNamara et al. (2020) and revised by Kamogne Tagne et al. (2022) to frame our analysis and discussion. Our study broadly affirms this model; however, as our discussion outlines, we find some casual pathways more pertinent than others in our case studies. We also identify additional impacts and pathways of impact at work in our case studies. In addition to testing this model, we further disaggregate the impacts of COVID-19 on wild meat trade networks by examining how these impacts vary across different trade network actors. We conclude by discussing the importance of wild meat trade as an environmental coping strategy during times of crisis. We also reflect on the potential for this environmental coping strategy to provide development and conservation benefits when supported by appropriate regulations to ensure sustainable wildlife management.
By examining the impacts of COVID-19 on actors involved in the wild meat trade across the four countries of Guyana, Cameroon, Colombia, and the DRC, this article also contributes to a growing body of research on the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for welfare and wellbeing in the global South. This emerging body of literature has found that responses to COVID-19 -such as lockdown, home quarantine, travel restrictions and social distancinghad especially severe livelihood consequences for many in the global South (Uddin et al. 2022;Mansour et al. 2022). This is because market closures and travel and trading restrictions failed to account for livelihoods that require movement, resulting in lost income, while at the same time, leading to rising food costs, which threatened peoples' food security (Bassett et al. 2021;Belton et al. 2021;Lai et al., 2020;Leach et al. 2021;Krauss et al. 2022). When states' lack widespread health, social security and public policy assistance measures, this further contributed to the depth and scale of disruption caused by responses to the COVID-19 pandemic (Dutta and Fischer 2021;Kansiime et al., 2021). At the same time, some of this research points to a small silver lining, as disruptions to global supply chains sometimes resulted in greater support for local markets, agroecological practices and food sovereignty (Bennett et al. 2020;Fennell, n.d.). We add to this existing litera-ture further examples of unanticipated secondary effects of the COVID-19 crisis.

Wild meat trade networks and COVID-19
Wild meat refers to meat sourced from non-domesticated terrestrial mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Coad et al. 2019). Wild meat does not come from animals that are captive or farmed but instead from those that roam freely. Although wild meat is consumed and traded all over the world, it is a particularly important staple in many tropical and sub-tropical areas, where it contributes to food security (Alves and . The common perception that wild meat is only consumed due to a lack of alternatives or as a last resort is misguided (Lindsey et al. 2013). Wild meat often plays a pronounced role in peoples' health in contexts where other sources of protein are either unaffordable or unavailable (van Vliet et al. 2012;Fargeot et al. 2017). Wild meat provides nutritional diversity, including access to important vitamins and minerals that might otherwise be missing from peoples' diets (Cawthorn and Hoffman 2015). It also contributes to wellbeing and serves as a source of cultural and spiritual value and collective identity, consumed during festive events, as part of certain traditions, and as a delicacy (Wilkie et al. 2016;Luiselli et al., 2020). In this regard, wild meat is not only important to nutrition and food security but also to food sovereignty (see Ibarra et al., 2011;Morrison 2020).
Beyond subsistence, wild meat is also traded as part of peoples' livelihood portfolios, with income earned from wild meat sales often used to purchase other food items and necessities and to pay for school fees or medical care . The importance of this source of income varies from place to place and has changed over time. For instance, wild meat provides a fall-back source of income during periods of hardship in some places, while it serves as a primary source of income in many other places. In some parts of the world, there is evidence that the economic value of wild meat has grown in recent years with rising demand in urban centres and expanding international markets (Lindsey et al. 2013). In other areas, people -and particularly youth -may be shifting away from relying on wild meat for income as alternative employment opportunities become more readily available (Coad et al. 2013;Gill et al. 2012). Regardless of these contextual differences and changing trends, the contribution of wild meat to global household cash income is significant. A recent study estimates that informal and local wild meat trade may be worth approximately USD 7.8 billion across Central and South America, Eastern, Southern and South-eastern Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (Nielsen et al. 2018). These estimates are also 'likely to be conservative' (Nielsen et al. 2018), as reliable statistics are hard to come by due to the wild meat sector's informality, illegality and stigmatisation in many contexts.
In light of the importance of wild meat to food security, incomes and wellbeing, there is growing interest in understanding the structure and operations of wild meat trade networks. This information is essential to increasing the sustainability of wild meat use. Several published case studies detail the organisation of wild meat sectors across different parts of sub-Saharan Africa (Lescuyer and Nasi 2016;Nielsen et al. 2018; , Southeast Asia (Pattiselanno et al. 2020), and Latin America (van Vliet et al. 2015b). These studies have shown how the sector operates through complex networks comprised of rural hunters, urban and rural traders (including market vendors restaurateurs), and consumers. They have also attempted to estimate the contribution of wild meat to the livelihoods of different actors within these networks. Studies that track how wild meat trade networks contribute to economies, livelihoods, and food security both indi-vidually and at a societal level reveal just how important the sector is to a variety of actors in all sorts of settings around the world.
Despite the potential for wild meat to contribute positively to economies and livelihoods, it is common for the wild meat trade to be mischaracterised in the academic literature and misrepresented in policy processes . For instance, links are often made between wild meat, illegal trade, and organised crime, including the trafficking of protected species across borders (Cardoso et al. 2021;Gluszek et al., 2021;Gore et al. 2021). The sector is also pointed out for its negative impacts on ecosystem services, contributing to biodiversity decline (Ripple et al., 2019;Cardoso et al. 2021). These characterisations of wild meat use and consumption remain predominant. Yet, not all flows of wild meat or forms of wild meat trade are illegal or unsustainable. Wild meat is usually only illegal when species being traded are protected by law, hunted without following the premises of the law (e.g banned hunting methods, hunted in close seasons, hunted without the required permits etc.) or when they are procured from protected areas where hunting is disallowed . Additionally, wild meat trade becomes unsustainable when it reduces wildlife populations (Willis et al. 2022) or contributes to increased extinction risk and breakdown in ecological processes (Dirzo et al. 2014). The capacity of a given species to withstand hunting pressure highly depends on its reproduction characteristics, habitat preferences, behaviour towards anthropogenic presence, and geographical distribution; not to mention other harmful anthropogenic forces at work, such as industrial and infrastructural expansion, natural resource expansion, and flawed protected area models.
Biases against wild meat trade have been further accentuated by recent zoonotic outbreaks, because wild meat trade networks can serve as interfaces where diseases spill over from wild animal hosts to human populations and, potentially in some situations, back to animals. Even in cases where links between wild meat consumption and zoonotic disease outbreaks are unproven, some conservation and animal rights organisations are often quick to harness the spectacular nature of outbreaks to inspire calls for urgent action in support of their broader agendas. In response to past outbreaks, governments have answered such concerns with new policies and more stringent regulatory measures to limit public consumption of and access to wild meat, such as closing markets where wild meat is sold or increasing hunting regulation and protected area enforcement. For example, wild meat was subject to great scrutiny by the media and conservation organisations during Ebola outbreaks in central and western Africa between 2014 and 2016, resulting in national and local regulations banning the consumption of bushmeat (Bonwitt et al. 2018).
Several recent studies have attempted to capture the specific impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wild meat sector (Funk et al. 2021;Harvey-Carroll et al., 2022;Kamogne Tagne et al. 2022;McNamara et al. 2020;Roe et al. 2020). agree that a likely impact of the pandemic on wild meat economies was reduced demand for wild meat in urban areas due to the depression of local economies and employment levels, as well as increased attention directed at zoonotic disease. At the same time, demand for wild meat and hunting for subsistence purposes in rural areas increased, at least partly due to urban-rural migration. Kamogne Tagne et al. (2022) also found that national government responses to the pandemic, such as travel restrictions and market closures, may reduce incentive to hunt for commercial purposes. These studies suggest that the overall impact of the pandemic on wild meat use varies across different areas (Kamogne Tagne et al. 2022, 136).
Building on this recent work that identifies spatial differences in wild meat market responses, we are interested in understanding how different trade network actors have been impacted by and responded to the pandemic. As noted above, wild meat trade networks are comprised of multiple actors (e.g. hunters, brokers, traders, retailers, and consumers) who operate in different locales (e.g. rural and urban) and at different scales (e.g. local, national, and international). Existing research has shown that these actors have diverse interests, needs, and motivations for using wild meat, and that these actors are also differentially affected by interventions to regulate or alter the wild meat sector (Cowlishaw et al., 2005;Lescuyer and Nasi, 2016;Nielsen et al., 2018;van Vliet et al., 2015a;. For example, interventions aimed at encouraging urban wild meat consumers in shifting towards alternative protein sources may have no adverse impacts on urban consumers but can have devastating impacts on commercial hunters if their income-earning opportunities are not replaced. With this in mind, our study aims to capture how different segments of society involved in the hunting, trade, sale and consumption of wild meat have been differentially affected by shocks trigged by COVID-19. We use a model developed by McNamara et al. (2020) and revised by Kamogne Tagne et al. (2022) to frame our analysis and discussion of the shocks created by the COVID-19 pandemic for wild meat trade networks. We then discuss vulnerability and coping strategies in response to these shocks across different trade network actors. Informed by similar work by Krauss et al. (2021) on other rural trade networks during the COVID-19 pandemic, we define vulnerability as, ''the degree to which a system, subsystem, or system component is likely to experience harm due to exposure to a hazard, either a perturbation or stress/stressor" (Turner et al. 2003, 8074), and coping strategies as, ''shorterterm ways of dealing with stresses, especially those [stresses] linked to economisation of food" (Quinn et al. 2011). This conceptualisation of vulnerability is useful as it draws attention to the fact that vulnerability is not merely a function of exposure to hazards, but also of the ability of the system to cope with perturbations and stresses associated with hazards (Turner et al. 2003).

Research methods
In this article, we use a comparative case study approach. Comparative case study involves the systematic comparison of data across comparable cases to identify patterns or formulate generalizations about a phenomenon of interest (Bartlett and Vavrus, 2016). Our cases are comparable in the sense that each represents the phenomenon we are interested in understanding: a wild meat trade network with the potential to have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a comparative case study approach allows us to identify patterns in the impacts of COVID-19 on wild meat trade actors across these cases. At the same time, as illustrated in the following section, there are notable differences in the wild meat trade networks across our five cases in four countries. These differences make it possible for us to examine how the impacts of COVID-19 were mediated and shaped by contextspecific factors.
Data was collected using semi-structured questionnaires. The authors conducted a total of 1,876 questionnaires during the COVID-19 pandemic with key actors across the value network in each case study area (Table 1). The trade networks studied were chosen based on the availability of previous baseline information to characterize them before COVID-19. The type and number of actors interviewed varied from case to case as a result of differences in the structure of the wild meat sector in each country as described in previous literature. Where the total number of hunters, retailers and consumers was above 100, we interviewed between 5% and 15% of the total number of stakeholders involved in the wildmeat trade prior to the pandemic. Where their number was below 100, we interviewed them all. As such, in Colombia, we only interviewed 2 traders, but these represent 100% of the known sample size. Also in Colombia, where traders completely closed their business during the first months of the COVID-19 outbreak, consumers were not interviewed. KoboCollect was used to design questionnaires and store and manage data in a systematized way. Semi-structured questionnaire interviews were carried out in the official language of each country and translated into other languages spoken by respondents when needed.
The questions asked during this research focused on understanding the potential impacts of COVID-19 on the sector, including questions related to: changes in consumption and trade patterns relative to pre-COVID-19 operations; changes to how wild meat was handled, transported, and prepared relative to pre-COVID-19 operations; changes in the availability of supply, price, species, and preferences relative to pre-COVID-19 operations; and presumed reasons for any changes (see Appendix A for questionnaire). Notably, we describe our approach to data collection as 'semi-structured' because questionnaires were used to loosely guide, rather than dictate, conversations, so that participants could contribute information they deemed relevant but that the research team may not have considered (Brinkmann 2014). Each participant answered all questions included in the questionnaire, but their answers may have come out in conversation without being explicitly asked and the order of questions asked depended on how the conversation unfolded. Our use of semi-structured questionnaires enabled us to collect data that was comparable across cases without sacrificing detailed qualitative insights and information that we might have missed otherwise.
Prior to beginning this research, this study underwent a Research Ethics and Integrity review at the University of Birming-ham (ethics application number: ERN_20-1400) and necessary research permission were obtained for national and/or local government authorities in each case study country. In-country research teams were comprised of experienced researchers and local enumerators who were familiar with the wild meat sector and able to ensure the research was sensitive to ethical and political considerations associated with wild meat hunting and trade. At the start of data collection, in-country research teams explained the aims of the research to relevant stakeholders and potential participants to obtain informed consent before proceeding with the research. Care was taken to protect the confidentiality of participants and anonymise data. As data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, guidance from national and World Health Organisation authorities was adhered to throughout our research activities, including: regular hand washing with water and soap for both researchers and participants; wearing of face masks; and keeping a distance of at least 2 m, preferably outdoors. Participants were provided with face masks by the research team when needed.

The coast of Guyana
In Guyana -a country on the northern mainland of South America -wild meat is a festive food. Eating wild meat is associated with happiness, flavour, health, and childhood. Wild meat consumption takes place at special events, particularly Christmas, birthdays, or heritage months, such as Indigenous month celebrated in September. Beef, chicken, and pork are roughly half the price of the mean price of wild meat ). The top five most commonly consumed species are labba (Cuniculus paca), bush deer (Mazama nemorivaga), tapir (Tapirus terrestris), collared peccary (Dicotyles tajacu) and capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) ( ). Other species listed among those most often traded are agouti (Dasyprocta), powis (Crax alec- tor) and iguana (Iguana). Of these, only the tapir is listed as threatened, and none are protected in Guyana ( ).
On the coast of Guyana, wild meat is traded in markets, restaurants, rum shops (bars), grocery stores, home based shops, and roadside stalls. In total, 73 traders and retailers were actively trading wild meat prior to the pandemic: 17 market retailers, 14 restaurants, 17 rum shops, 10 home-based traders, 7 grocery stores, and 8 roadside traders ). The business is dominated by men (75%) ). In addition to physical sale points, wild meat is also advertised online via What-sApp and social media.  estimated that about 132 tons of wild meat are traded per year on the coast of Guyana. Most wild meat retailers on the coast of Guyana (70% of those sampled) reported that wild meat reaches them either already gutted on ice or as freshly killed, but is then frozen for storage before sale.
About 50% of retailers active in the wild meat trade on the coast of Guyana sell their own catch and have no intermediary ). In such cases, traders tend to organise hunting trips on regular occasions to known hunting grounds where they have acquaintances or family. These traders are usually passionate hunters who provide the cartridges, fuel, coolers, and ice and make arrangements with local contacts to organise hunting parties. The other half of the traders have agreements with 1 or 2 commercial hunters (mostly Indigenous or African-Guyanese living in the interior) with whom they have good personal relationships and who supply them with wild meat on a regular basis . Only four of the retailers (6%) use a middleperson to obtain the wild meat for sale . Such personal relationships are important as, unlike other cases considered in this article, only Indigenous communities have the right to hunt on titled lands in Guyana while others must obtain a license based on the new regulations issued in 2019 (Coad et al. 2019). However, the new licensing system is not yet implemented and as such the sector remains largely unregulated. Hunting incomes are important for many Indigenous communities in Guyana -sometimes earning households 10-times more than the revenue they might earn in other sectors, such as tourism (Wenner and Johnny 2015).

Yangambi and Kisangani, DRC
Yangambi is a town in the northeast of DRC surrounded by the Yangambi Biosphere Reserve. Traditional agriculture, including cultivating cassava, banana, maize, rice, cowpeas, beans, and groundnuts, is a primary livelihood activity in and around the town; however, two-thirds of households experience insufficient food availability to meet 2,000 calories per day, falling below the recommended intake (Nowak et al. 2019). Apart from fish, there are few other sources of meat available . As a result, wild meat demand is high and contributes significantly to peoples' protein needs with over 60% of households eating wild meat more than once a week (van Vliet et al. 2017).
Yet, the consumption of wild meat in Yangambi is not purely out of necessity: it is also associated with happiness ( ). Most of the wild meat consumed in Yangambi originates from the Turumbu sector and particularly from Weko, a village about 30 km north of Yangambi town. Most meat is smoked at the level of the rural hunters to conserve the meat for transportation and sale in town. As many as 34 species of wild animals are hunted and traded in the area. The most traded species are small monkeys (38% of the biomass), red duikers (Cephalophus natalensis) (31%), blue duikers (Philantomba monticola), bush pigs (Potamochoerus larvatus) and bush tailed porcupines (Atherurus) . Several species of small carnivores and rodents are also hunted, traded, and consumed.
As wild meat sales are very attractive in an area with limited other income earning prospects, hunters from Weko sell more than 80% of what they hunt, sometimes prioritising sales over family food security . Most wild meat in Yangambi is traded at the market, forming the end point of a complex trade network that involves hundreds of people. The wild meat trade network is complex, involving widespread participation and exchanges among a large number of individuals, as a result of ease of access to the market. About 845 people were involved in the wild meat trade network as their primary livelihood activity in 2018: 253 market traders and brokers (153 women and 100 men), 539 commercial hunters, and 53 women who participate in hunting trips with their husbands . About 145 tons of wild meat are traded per year in Yangambi ( . Kisangani, the provincial capital of the Tshopo Province and the third largest city in DRC, lies along the Congo River. During the last 15 years, the urban population from Kisangani exploded from 247,000 inhabitants in 2002, to 628,000 in 2009, and 1,600,000 in 2015 (RDC 2015). In Kisangani, agriculture and livestock production dramatically dropped during conflict in the region in the early 2000 s. Consequently, the population heavily relied on wild meat as a main source of protein and income (de Merode et al. 2004; van Vliet et al. 2015a) and urban wild meat markets flourished. Kisangani became a central marketplace for wild meat to feed the growing urban population (van Vliet et al. 2012).
However, while a decade ago, wild meat and fish were still the most frequently consumed animal proteins in Kisangani, particularly among poorer households (van Vliet et al. 2015b), meat from domestic animals has recently become more affordable, reducing reliance on wild meat. Imported chicken and pork are now competitive with wild meat (van Vliet et al. 2017) and increasingly popular among wealthier households. Nevertheless, because smoked wild meat is traded in piles that can be as small as a Maggi cube of stock or seasoning, whereas chicken or pork are only traded per kilogram, it remains more affordable to those who manage on small daily budgets.

Dja South, Cameroon
Dja et Lobo has 8 subdivisions of which five, including Djoum, Meyomessala, Meyomessi, Mintom, and Dja South, that were part of our study. Sangmélima town (82,513 ha) is the centre of the Dja et Lobo division in southern Cameroon. These subdivisions are located south of the Dja Faunal Reserve and constitute major consumption and transit hubs for wild meat harvested in the southern part of the reserve and transported to Yaoundé and Douala. Communities around Dja Reserve largely rely on subsistence farming for food security and livelihoods, making use of wild meat and other forest products (Bobo et al. 2015). Hunting and logging are also important sources of income.
In Dja South, wild meat is consumed because it is considered a nutritious source of food, but it also plays an important role in culture and tradition, often being associated with medicinal use. Taste is also an important driver of wild meat consumption (Nguyen et al. 2021). Over the last decade, wild meat has become more expensive than beef and fish (personal communication, Dja South, October 2021). It is also considered scarcer due to the illegality of the trade, which has created new barriers to transporting wild meat from villages to towns (personal communication, Dja South, October 2021). On the southern part of the Reserve, the N9 road links medium sized towns, such as Dja South, Djoum, and Meyomessala, to more remote villages where hunting takes place. Hunting is carried out throughout the year with steel-wire traps and shotguns. Traps are placed near or around the fields to prevent crop damage by rodents, ungulates, and monkeys (Sakanashi 2011). In villages north of Dja Reserve, hunting serves primarily a subsistence role, because the state of the road does not allow easy access to the markets (Ávila et al. 2019).
Meat is brought from the forests around the Dja reserve to markets either directly by hunters, transporters who buy meat from hunters and deliver it to the markets, or middle people who travel to villages to buy from multiple hunters and then resell wild meat to retailers (Saylors et al. 2021). Saylors et al. (2021) identified 48 retailers engaged in the trade network who depend on wild meat as their main source of income. When brought to market, the meat is usually carried in large rice sacks and sold on roadside stands, displayed on cardboard, plastic sheeting, or wooden planks, often on the ground (Saylors et al. 2021). Wild meat is traded in different forms: fresh (carcass as a whole or in piles of meat), smoked, or cooked (Sakanashi 2011). Pangolins (Phataginus), brush-tailed porcupines, and duikers are the most frequently consumed in restaurants from Dja South (Nguyen et al. 2021).

Leticia and tri-frontier region of Colombia
Leticia is the capital city of the Amazonas state in Colombia (48,144 inhabitants) and is located on the Amazon River, at the southern end of the country, in the tri-frontier region between Brazil, Colombia, and Peru. The local economy is mainly based on slash-and-burn cultivation (chagras) and some trade. Agricultural food production, which is often protein poor, is complemented by hunting and fishing. Tourism provides some alternative income, as do drug trafficking and the illegal extraction of cedar (van Vliet et al. 2014).
In Leticia, wild meat consumption is more frequent in wealthier families and could be considered a festival food, referring to the use of food to express cultural values , Morsello et al. 2015. In contrast, chicken is the primary protein of poorer populations. Wild meat is cheaper than beef but more expensive than most fish, chicken, and canned meats (van Vliet et al. 2014). Despite its low frequency of consumption, wild meat continues to play an important role in terms of dietary diversity .
The most commercialised species are paca (Cuniculus), tapir, collared peccary, deer and white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari). Wild meat at the market is almost exclusively sold fresh (92%). It is estimated that about 250 tons of wild meat are sold in Leticia per year (van Vliet et al., 2014). Wild meat is sold at the main market (2), in restaurants (16), and in food stalls on streets (14) (van Vliet et al. 2017). In total, 32 wild meat traders were identified in Leticia. The structure of the trade network follows the 'gate keeper' type described in Phelps et al. (2016), where a few traders control the business due to its illegality. All sales are clandestine, hidden from the general public. Trade occurs within a trusted network of customers and retailers who communicate by phone or regular visits. Wild meat is never openly offered on the menus of restaurants and at the market; it is hidden under ice in refrigerators placed at the back of market stalls. Given enforcement, wild meat traders are unable to increase prices when wild meat becomes scarce, such as during dry seasons . Wild meat traded in Leticia comes from the Javari River in Brazil, from the Atacuari and Amazon River on the Peruvian side, and from periurban communities near Leticia ( van Vliet et a. 2015a).

Consumers
Across cases, the most significant impact of the pandemic on consumers was shifts in the price and availability of wild meat. Especially during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, wild meat prices increased and availability decreased, leading consumers to eat less wild meat. In Kisangani, this had significant effects on food security, with a majority of consumers (58% of 308) mentioning they worried about their food security during the early months of the pandemic. These impacts were experienced less acutely in Yangambi, where consumers reported no price increase for wild meat or fish but a slight decrease in supply. Despite small decreases in availability of wild meat, only 4 out of 74 households interviewed expressed concern because most households could produce their own food.
Of the 540 consumers interviewed in Dja South, 23% had been forced to reduce their consumption of wild meat because it had become hard to find. These consumers described, ''During COVID-19 period, retailers in the market increased the bushmeat prices saying that it was no longer easy for them to get supplies of bushmeat from rural areas" (Dja South, October 2021). Another consumer explained, ''Bushmeat was more expensive during [the beginning of the pandemic] because many hunters had stopped hunting and bushmeat did not get to the city as before due to multiple checks by the forest and wildlife enforcement officers" (Dja South, October 2021). In Leticia, access to food was a real concern for urban dwellers, despite the distribution of food baskets through a government programme. Supply of the most common sources of protein (imported processed meats and industrial chicken) was disrupted due to the closure of the border with Brazil, and local fish and wildmeat were scarce as a consequence of mobility restrictions totally preventing fishers and hunters from supplying the market.
Across the 540 consumers interviewed in Dja South, Cameroon, 5% said they stopped eating wild meat altogether after hearing that COVID-19 could be transmitted via wild animals, but 26% reported being more concerned about the links between zoonotic diseases and wild meat during the pandemic. As one regular wild meat consumer explained, ''During the COVID-19 crisis I avoided eating pangolin, because it was said that pangolin was transmitting COVID to humans" (Dja South, October 2021). Growing concern about the links between zoonotic diseases (e.g. COVID) and wild meat in Sangmélima was linked to increased public health messaging around wild meat consumption during the pandemic using print media, social media, and radio. NGOs and IGOs were involved in running campaigns about the disease risks associated with eating wild meat. For example, WildAid ran a campaign in Cameroon with the message ''Don't eat, buy, or trade in risky bushmeat" (WildAid, 2020). Such messaging appears to have had at least some effect on perceptions of the risks wild meat trade poses to human health.
In other cases, there was no reduced demand for particular species from consumers, but their overall awareness of the risks associated with wild meat consumption increased, along with attention to handling practices. For example, most urban consumers on the coast of Guyana (58% of the 121 interviewed) reported that, despite hearing about potential links between zoonotic diseases and consumption of wild meat, they would have continued eating it if it had been available. However, 12% of the households agreed that the pandemic had made them think about the zoonotic risks associated with handling wild meat more broadly. Such findings reflect how urban consumers' perceptions of disease risk may have shifted with the pandemic.
As such, COVID-19 had significant impacts on wild meat consumers in urban settings. Across cases, market and border closures, social distancing advice and mobility restrictions contributed to less supply and higher prices for wild meat in urban settings. In some cases, awareness raising campaigns further effected peoples' options, with consumers becoming more selective about the type and quality of meat they would eat. Alongside rising non-wild meat food prices and falling urban incomes due to COVID-19 related shocks, these trends significantly impacted on the food security of urban households.

Traders and retailers
During the earlier months of the pandemic, the temporary closure of food markets and restaurants that sell wild meat had a significant impact on traders and retailers in wild meat trade networks. On the coast of Guyana, restrictions were placed on domestic travel and social gatherings were prohibited. Restaurants, bars, and rum shops were closed and a nightly curfew was imposed. In Guyana, 55 of the 73 retailers stopped selling wild meat for at least a period of time during the first months of the COVID pandemic. In Kisangani, the effects were even more severe with all retailers (72 out of 72) closing for at least some time during the same period. In Colombia, wildmeat supply from neighbouring communities and from across the border in Brazil and was totally blocked, similarly causing retailers (2 out of 2) to halt their market activities.
Even in cases where retailers were able to stay open, many reported selling lower volumes of wild meat. In Guyana, retailers explained that the species and prices of the wild meat sold did not change significantly during the pandemic; however, the volume of wild meat being sold was half what it was pre-pandemic. This was due to supply shortages, as restrictions in movements made it difficult for traders to transport wild meat from rural hunting grounds to urban areas. In Cameroon, restrictions on movement and a lack of access to ammunition decreased the level of commercial hunting, leaving traders with little supply for urban centres. Of the 60 retailers interviewed in Dja South, 65% considered that supply in wild meat decreased or considerably decreased while the prices they paid for wild meat increased. About 40% of the retailers closed business for several months and temporarily engaged in other activities to make ends meet, such as agriculture and the sale of crops.
Retailers were also affected by shifts in the behaviours and preferences of consumers during the pandemic. In Leticia, consumers barely left their homes during the early days of the pandemic, meaning demand was far lower than usual. In Dja South, retailers (61%) reported a decrease in demand, with less demand for pangolin and monkeys from consumers. One market trader attribute this decrease in sales to ''the media [which] accused pangolin and monkey of transmitting the COVID-19 virus" (Dja South, October 2021). In contrast, none of the interviewed retailers in Yangambi were concerned about the links between COVID-19 and wild meat, explaining ''COVID has nothing to do with wild meat" (Yangambi, May 2021) and ''my clients pay no attention to that because that disease, we don't have it here" (Yangambi, May 2021).

Hunters and subsistence users
As a general trend, shocks triggered by COVID-19 reduced the incentive for hunters to engage in commercial hunting. In some cases, restrictions on movement made it hard for hunters to access supplies needed to hunt for commercial purposes. As one hunter in Ngazi, near Kisangani, DRC, explained, ''I changed the frequency of hunting. There were not many ammunitions available because people circulated less during that period. I went hunting 2-3 times per month instead of 5-6 times" (Ngazi, May 2021). In other cases, there were fewer opportunities for hunters to generate income through hunting because retailers were closed and consumers were buying less than before the pandemic. In Cameroon, 49% of hunters reported hunting less during the pandemic due to market closures, decreased demand and lower prices. In Guyana, concerns of becoming ill with COVID-19 also discouraged hunters from joining hunting parties during the first few months of the pandemic. There were also reports of increased scrutiny from forest and wildlife services in Cameroon, which discouraged hunters from harvesting wild animals for commercial purposes during the pandemic.
In contrast, the incentive to hunt for subsistence purposes slightly increased during the pandemic. In Cameroon, people reported that access to processed foods arriving in rural villages from urban areas slowed during the first months of the pandemic due to restrictions on travel and transport. Despite this decrease in food availability, most rural households (96%) did not worry about having enough food during this time. Instead, food was secured by turning to subsistence activities, such as hunting, fishing, gathering forest products, and agriculture. As one hunter explained, ''During COVID-19, I hunted only to feed myself" (Meyomessala, September 2021) and as another said, ''I went hunting a bit more during COVID-19 crisis to ensure the survival of my family, as other type of foodstuffs had become rare due to restrictions in transports" (Mintom, September 2021).
Similar trends were seen in rural parts of DRC where hunting was common, with hunters explaining that although foods like Maggi cubes and salt became expensive, there was always enough food due to hunting. In rural areas around Yangambi, 20% of the hunters mentioned increasing their crop production during the pandemic and 11% of them mentioned eating more wild meat than usual. As one hunter explained: ''We observed the closure of schools and church, so we moved with all the kids to the camp inside the forest. I cultivated some crops there. We could go fishing and hunting all the time" (Weko, May 2021). In response to restrictions that prevented people from convening, socializing and engaging in income-generating opportunities, families temporarily moved to the forest, where they ''started putting more traps for wildlife" and also fishing, gathering, and cultivating more small crops (e.g. cassava, plantain, yam, and fruits) (Weko, May 2021).
In most cases, the incentive to hunt for commercial purposes decreased far more than the incentive to hunt for subsistence purposes, which may suggest that less wild meat was harvested during the pandemic; however, in the absence of data on the volume of meat harvested by individual hunters before and during the pandemic, we cannot know for certain. Alongside greater reliance on subsistence hunting by existing hunters, there was also a return to subsistence hunting by other actors in wild meat trade networks during the pandemic. Many urban dwellers were forced to return back to their home villages due to the closure of schools and universities and the loss of employment in urban centers. In Cameroon, people described how there was ''more bushmeat in the village [during this time] as many people were hunting, even students who came from the city after closure of schools" (Meyomessi, August 2021). Even those that did not lose jobs sometimes elected to return to their villages during the pandemic ''due to fear of contamination" (Dja South, October 2021), similarly reverting to hunting to secure food and earn income while back home.
These same trends were seen in the interior of Guyana, where people reported an increase in subsistence hunting during the pandemic. They explained that many urban households that migrated to rural areas and un-employed rural households had more time available and less purchasing power because of the loss of jobs and income. As such, men invested more time in subsistence fishing and hunting -both as a pastime and as a source of food. Out of 188 hunters, 25 (13%) increased hunting for subsistence during the pandemic, while 100% of men that migrated temporarily from urban to rural areas engaged in hunting and fishing as a pastime. Interestingly, Indigenous leaders described renewed reliance on wild meat as having the potential to have a positive impact on the land, explaining: ''The pandemic became the engine to inspire the younger generation in learning our traditional knowledge and skills, something for which we have worked hard for decades" (Indigenous leader, Aishalton/Guyana, October 2020). Indeed, the pandemic showed the limitations of having food systems that were too dependent on the global economy and on transborder trade.
Similarly, in rural areas around Leticia, Indigenous communities that usually rely on incomes from tourism, turned to subsistence farming, fishing, and hunting during the first months of the pandemic. As people were left without jobs or income, many reactivated their chagras and started growing vegetables around their homes. All hunters (46 out of 46) increased hunting for subsistence. Only Indigenous leaders were allowed to travel to the city to procure necessities, such as grains, salt, and sugar, for the community. One community member stated that ''Those who knew how to hunt or fish were advantaged" (San Pedro community, October 2020), as a new economy arose at the community level, whereby people went fishing or hunting to trade for crops at the local community market instead of being transported to Leticia. Since movement to Leticia was forbidden, communities became new consumption hubs for all food products coming from the forest and farms. Much like in the interior of Guyana, this return to subsistence activities revived interest in caring for the territory and Indigenous land. Hunters and fishermen went fishing in areas that had been disused for decades. In some communities near Leticia, Indigenous leaders regulated where community members were fishing and hunting, controlled access for outsiders, and engaged in new conservation efforts, such as the protection of special salt licks.

Discussion
Departing from early predictions that the COVID-19 crisis would result in less wild meat in the food system overall, our find-ings suggest that the pandemic reduced access to wild meat in urban areas while increasing reliance on wild meat for subsistence purposes in rural areas. This aligns with recent work by McNamara et al. (2020) andKamogne Tagne et al. (2022), who report decreases in the commercial incentive to hunt for wild meat alongside increases in the incentive to hunt for subsistence purposes in sub-Saharan African countries during the pandemic. We present this finding cautiously, as we recognise that the response of wild meat markets to the COVID-19 crisis needs to be contextualised: The same shocks may have led to different outcomes in places with different ecological, political-economic and socio-cultural conditions. Nonetheless, our findings provide a useful insight into how shocks to global food systems -which can be caused by disease outbreaks, like COVID-19, or other crises, such as political upheaval or natural disasters -may impact on wild meat markets, peoples' food security and biodiversity conservation outcomes.
In terms of the causes of changing incentives to hunt and trade wild meat during the COVID-19 pandemic, some of our findings slightly diverge from other work, such as that by McNamara et al. (2020) andKamogne Tagne et al. (2022). By and large, we did not find evidence of commercial hunting decreasing as a result of wild meat being stigmatized at the national level unambiguously as hypothesized in McNamara et al. (2020). Instead, we saw marginalization of particular species in places where local behaviour change campaigns were put in place to reduce consumption for health related reasons, such as pangolin in Cameroon. McNamara et al. (2020) also hypothesised that falling government revenue because of declines in oil prices and international tourism would lead to less hunting regulation and law enforcement in national parks and, consequently, greater incentive to hunt. However, we found no evidence of this causal pathway across our cases. On the contrary, hunters in Cameroon reported more checks by enforcement officers, and hunters in Guyana and Colombia reported more restrictions on movement in and out of hunting grounds. Similar trends were seen by  in other parts of Latin America where national and local authorities were stricter in controlling access to hunting and fishing grounds to avoid disease transmission. Such measures decreased peoples' incentive and ability to transport wild meat from hunting areas to urban areas during the pandemic, further contributing to reduced access to wild meat in urban centers.
We also identified additional impact pathways through our study. First, the reduction in international travel and decline in visitors resulted in employment loss and declining incomes in some rural areas, increasing the incentive to hunt for subsistence purposes. Second, restrictions that reduced the availability of transport to and from town and increased transport costs decreased the supply and diversity of wild meat available in urban markets and increased wild meat prices in urban areas. Third, as unemployed urban dwellers migrated to rural areas, they engaged in hunting both as a subsistence activity and as a spare time activity. Fourth, as international markets collapsed, access to ammunition became an issue for hunters, who gave up on commercial hunting. Lastly, since church and school were closed, we also observed temporary migration of rural families to forest camps where they had easier access to food.
Relatedly, we identified feedback loops which were absent from the McNamara model (orange arrows in Figure 2). First, as the incentive to hunt for commercial purposes decreased, the supply of wild meat in urban food systems decreased and the price increased. Also, as the borders closed and national markets collapsed due to COVID-19 related measures, trade networks collapsed. We have added these impact pathways to McNamara et al.'s (2020)  In addition to testing and revising this causal model, our study identifies patterns and trends in how different wild meat trade network actors experienced the impacts of the pandemic. By and large, trade network actors in urban spaces were more acutely affected by COVID-19 than those in rural areas. These effects were most pronounced in regions where wild meat networks are complex, including multiple intermediaries or spanning long distances, as national restrictions on transport and trade prevented meat from reaching urban markets for a period of time (see Table 2). For example, urban retailers in Kisangani were affected by supply shortages and market closures whereas retailers outside of the urban centre in Yangambi reported far less severe impacts on their trade (see Table 3). This supports recent work by Rudolph et al. (2022), who found that the disruptions caused by the pandemic were most notable in urban centres where the wild meat market provides retailers an important cash-generating opportunity in otherwise challenging economic landscape. Urban consumers were also more affected by COVID-19 related shocks than rural consumers. This was particularly true of urban consumers who rely on wild meat for food security and lack access to affordable alternative protein sources (see Table 2). For example, urban consumers in Kisangani were far more concerned about their food security than rural consumers in nearby Yangambi, who were often still able to access meat or hunt for subsistence purposes (see Table 3).
Unlike in urban settings where reliance on wild meat was often to the detriment of trade network actors, wild meat served as a safety net and means of coping with shocks and stressors for many rural trade network actors. Even in cases where urban market closures decreased demand for commercial hunting, rural hunters did not tend to associate this with significant adverse impacts on their overall food security or livelihoods. They were instead able to meet their needs by increasing subsistence activities during this period, such as hunting, fishing, gathering forest products, and farming. Like McNamara et al. (2020) and Kamogne Tagne et al. (2022), we found increased dependence on subsistence hunting in rural settings across our case studies, especially during the early months of the pandemic when the socioeconomic effects of lockdowns were most acute. The importance of hunting as a coping strategy is further evidenced by the fact that hunting increased as processed food in rural spaces became less accessible and more expensive, and as people returned home to rural areas from towns and cities to hunt following income loss and food insecurity.
These findings parallel an existing body of research that suggests that wild meat can serve as an environmental coping strategy that rural populations turn to as a safety net during hazard exposure. For example, some research has found higher levels of wild meat consumption and trade during seasonal dry spells and droughts (Alves et al. 2009;Mendonça et al., 2016;Schulte-Herbrüggen et al. 2017). Even in places where hunting does not tend to be a major contributor to income, wild meat can be turned to as a safety net when agricultural livelihoods are temporarily unavailable or fail because of idiosyncratic shocks (Jambiya et al. 2007;Ordaz-Németh et al. 2017;Schulte-Herbrüggen et al. 2017). Similarly, van Vliet et al. (2017; found that the trade and consumption of wild meat increased in parts of DRC in response to high levels of political and economic instability and conflict, loss of employment, and a lack of production and supply of other protein sources. Importantly, we found that the turn to subsistence hunting experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic was not necessarily a last resort. In the past, some have argued that environmental coping strategies, like hunting, are an option of last resort, ''which people only select as their primary safety net response when shocks are particularly severe and when, due to adverse household and village conditioning factors, they do not have any easier way out" (Wunder et al. 2014, S39). On the contrary, in our study, participants reported increasing reliance on subsistence hunting during the pandemic as a spare time activity that could reconnect them to their roots and culture. They also described how they enjoyed being able to hunt more during the pandemic, associating wild meat and hunting with health and happiness.
A growing body of research on the drivers of wild meat consumption finds that consumption of wild meat is often associated with emotional wellbeing and collective happiness (Dounias and Ichikawa 2017;van Vliet et al. 2015;  and promotes groundedness, security, and identity (Jepson and Canney 2003). Such insights help explain why returning to wild meat hunting and consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, even among more urban dwellers, was often readily accepted as a coping strategy rather than being seen as a measure of last resort. Food insecurity and income loss may cause people to seek out coping strategies during times of crises; however, the specific strategies they turn to are also associated with affective motivators, such as attachment to place, culture and identity, and belonging, as well as contextual understandings of health and wellbeing. People often choose to eat wild meat as it strengthens their connection to culture, home, and territory ; . It is therefore not surprising that rural, and even urban, populations may turn to subsistence hunting during severe hazard exposure instead of relying on other coping strategies, such as seeking support from relatives or finding informal work.
Ultimately, although hunting for wild meat can provide a safety net when incomes fall or food insecurity is experienced, not all wild meat trade network actors have the same access to this coping strategy. As Pritchard et al. (2020) explain, the environmental coping strategies available and preferred will depend on the type of hazards encountered, the resources available and the larger socio-political and environmental contexts. In the case of hunting for wild meat, there are a number of conditions that need to be met before hunting can be used as a safety net. These include: availability of wildlife (i.e. in depleted areas, the scarcity of wildlife is a constraint from an adaptation point of view); secure access to land and resources (i.e. in areas where communities have no granted access rights, vulnerability increases); and persistence of hunting knowledge (where hunting skills are lost, the capacity to rely on hunting in time of crises decreases) . This is well-illustrated by a case like Guyana with restricted resource access (see Table 2), as the right to hunt is largely limited to Indigenous peoples on their own territories ( . While a hunter in this trade network may be able to turn to subsistence hunting to cope with shocks, someone reselling wild meat in an urban market is less likely to have this option. These factors that condition a turn to hunting as a coping strategy have been added to our revised causal model ( Figure 2).
Finally, our study reinforces a growing body of research that shows how the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the socio-economic impacts, had particularly adverse impacts on peoples' welfare and wellbeing in the global South (Carmody and McCann 2020). Across these studies, sudden food costs hikes, alongside supply chain disruptions, closures of markets and other public spaces, and lockdowns made it difficult for many people in the global South to earn income and afford and access food The distinction between subsistence and commercial use of wild meat is often blurred (see Ingram et al., 2021;Ndibalema & Songorwa, 2008). ii Trade networks can also be blurry and vary by type of wildlife product being traded; however, the typology by Phelps (2016) is useful in capturing broad trends in wildlife trade.
C. Enns, N. van Vliet, J. Mbane et al. World Development 170 (2023) 106310 (Crush and Si 2020;Krauss et al. 2022;Kansiime et al. 2021;Makombe, 2021). This research has also found examples where national and international restrictions related to COVID-19 infringed on peoples' social and cultural rights and increased social stigmatisation of vulnerable groups in the global South (for example, see Uddin et al. 2022). Our research adds to this research further examples of tensions between public health interventions and socio-cultural rights, such as the Indigenous peoples' right to engage in subsistence hunting on their territories and exercise food sovereignty. However, there have been some positive findings in this research, which are similarly reflected by our study. The pandemic highlighted the risks of over-reliance on global trade networks. Producers in the global South who focus on growing specialized crops for export proved to be particularly vulnerable. As global buyers cancelled contracts and movement ceased, producers were often left holding perishable products they could not sell (Clapp and Moseley 2020). In contrast, those less integrated in global trade networks -such as small-scale fisheries and local wild meat trade -were not as vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks (Bassett et al. 2021;Moseley and Battersby 2020). Over time, many local trade networks proved able to adapt their distribution models to keep their production stable (Bennett et al 2020). In some cases, this shift generated environmental benefits. For example, there was a resurgence of local food networks and communitysupported fisheries during the pandemic alongside less industrial fishing, which may have provided some relief to marine ecosystems and possibly benefits for small-scale fisheries too (Bennett et al 2020). The increased reliance on hunting for subsistence purposes discussed in this article reflects a similar trend of (re)turning to local, decentralised solutions for managing food security in the global South during time of crisis -a trend that could usher in 'a new chapter in the field of global food security' (Fennell, n.d.).

Conclusion
The global COVID-19 pandemic thrust the wild meat trade into the international spotlight. Amidst rising fear and speculation the trade could lead to further zoonotic disease outbreaks, the sector came under greater pressure and scrutiny for posing public health  van Vliet, J. Mbane et al. World Development 170 (2023) 106310 risks. For this reason, one of the ''immediate responses to COVID-19 has been a call to ban wildlife trade given the suspected origin of the pandemic in a Chinese market selling and butchering wild animals" (Roe 2020, 1). Animal rights groups and conservation organisations have been at the forefront of these calls, but major development actors have also made similar calls, including the European Union, United Nations Environment Programme, and the United States Agency for International Development.
There is undeniably an urgent need to tackle wildlife trade that is illegal or unsustainable, or that carries risks to human health or animal welfare. However, attempts to mitigate public health risks by amending wild meat policy and management have often outpaced evidence about what does and does not work. For example, wildlife trade bans and market closures during past outbreaks and epidemics have pushed trade underground, making wild meat use more difficult for authorities to monitor, which is problematic when safety and public health concerns are at play (Weber et al. 2015;Bonwitt et al. 2018). As Ingram (2020) writes, there is a need for action to manage wildlife use ''to consider far more than risks of disease transmission alone, but also the wider implications of management strategies aimed at reducing wildlife use, taking into account the vast differences in the needs of different sectors of society to hunt and consume wild meat" (2020,118). In other words, policies and interventions for the wild meat sector need to be informed by evidence to prevent unintended social, economic, and environmental outcomes, especially for more vulnerable segments of society.
Our study responds to this point by revealing differences in how shocks affect the vulnerability and coping strategies of different segments of society involved in the hunting, trade, sale and consumption of wild meat. We show that for urban consumers living in places where wild meat provides a key source of protein -with complex supply chains that are particularly sensitive to external shocks -shocks that impede on the availability and accessibility of wild meat in markets threaten food security. For urban traders and vendors, such shocks remove an important cash-generating option from peoples' livelihood portfolios. Rural hunters and consumers appear better able to cope when wild meat becomes less available and accessible in markets, as they can turn to hunting as a coping strategy during times of crises. Our research suggests that protecting the right to participate in legal and sustainable hunting is essential to ensuring that rural actors can use wild meat as a safety net during times of crisis.
Based on this research, we conclude that shocks that disrupt wild meat hunting and trade risk adversely impacting on peoples' livelihoods and food security. Thus, efforts to improve the safety, sustainability and resiliency of the wild meat sector have greater potential to contribute to development outcomes than policies and interventions that initiate shocks in the wild meat sector, such as banning wild meat use altogether. This requires wild meat consumers, retailers, hunters, health officials and law enforcement to work together to understand where exposure to zoonotic risk occurs within wild meat networks and to implement practices that decrease this risk .
Our study raises important questions about the possible environmental benefits of the (re)turn to subsistence hunting -and local, decentralised food systems more broadly -as a coping strategy during times of crisis. In some of our case studies, reliance on hunting during the COVID-19 crisis appeared to make positive contributions to biodiversity and biocultural conservation outcomes, such as reinvigorating traditional knowledge and customary systems of land and resource management to prevent overharvesting of wild resources. There is existing evidence to suggest that sustainable wildlife use and trade can have conservation benefits by motivating people to actively protect species, habitats, and biodiversity (Roe et al. 2020). Future research should explore whether