The paper examines contributory factors easing the Bushmeat trade in Ghana, discloses the multiplicity and complicate character of the trade, some conservation measures attempted to control the trade and crisis and indicates avenues for future research and policy makeovers.
Keywords: Bushmeat, Ghana, Crisis, Wildlife, Trade
The unsustainable and illegal harvest of bushmeat occurring at a commercial extent is a dominant threat facing many wildlife species in Ghana today. Bushmeat, the meat of wild animals, is a highly valuable wildlife commodity in Ghana and has gone from traditional, subsistence to mainly commercial trade. By some calculate, Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1998, found that the once traditional way of life, has evolved into a $350 million dollar industry in Ghana that threatens abundant animals driving several primate species in the Upper Guinea forest to the brink of extinction. This has come at an enormous cost to a country that lacks the resources to assure sustainable management of their natural resource possible. Distinctive amongst the species is the Miss Waldron’s Red Colobus Monkey (Procolobus Badius Waldroni), a primate taxon endemic to the forest regions of Ghana and enlisted as extinct by IUCN Red List 2006.
clearly the current unsustainable pattern appears to be the outcome of overexploitation evidenced by the extensive outtake of species. The multiplicity and complicate character of the trade suggest various contributing factors easing the bushmeat crisis. I examine these factors, show some avenues for policy makeovers and suggest opportunities for future research.
2 General Background
The ‘bushmeat crisis’ is a term without succinct definition. A much general definition would be the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife for human consumption leading to extensive loss of wildlife populations, further endangerment of species, and reduced livelihoods for current and future generations of wildlife-dependent communities. It is an agonizing topic for anyone concerned for wildlife. In a distant past, large areas of Ghana’s forest and savanna lands supported meaningful and different populations of wild animals and were the main source of animal protein, biogenetic resources, a symbol of cultural identity and ethnic origin. (Conservation International, Ghana, 2005).
Today in Ghana a rather brutal slaughter is going on, only this time, instead of arable farm animals the victims are the monkeys, porcupines, and duikers etc, locally called ‘nwuramunam’ . Bushmeat trade, in the manner currently operated is equal not only to the illegal trade in exotic wildlife but the illegal drug trade which press more on profits of trade. The multibillion-dollar trade in bushmeat according to Brashares et al., 2004, is among the most immediate threats to the persistence of tropical vertebrates, with minimal empirical data and understanding on the inner drivers and effects on human welfare.
Very little attention is paid to wildlife habitats but meeting the demands of the thriving middle class either in the urban centres or in international cities, who consider eating bushmeat a delicacy. To some, the problem is without of adequate laws and their enforcement. Others claim it is poverty. However on close examination, the trade discloses contributing factors either than the popular poverty maxim. It is hoped that this exploratory report would show these many problems contributing to this ecological serious situation in Ghana.
2.1.1 A fleeting Description of Ghana and the Bushmeat Trade
Many scholars have indicated the existence of the bushmeat trade from of old. Grubb et al., 1998, indicated that the bushmeat trade has a long history in Ghana. Clark, 1994 commented that trade in smoked game in Ghana has been in existence since the fifteenth century. Some estimates by Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1998 indicate that every year 385 million kg of bushmeat are harvested (estimated at US$350 million) and 92 million kg are marketed (US$83 million). A recent research by Cowlishaw et al., 2003 revealed a general trend with the major animal groups being rodents (59% of total mass), duikers (25%), and invertebrates (15%) and a less than one percent being primates. A probable implication of the latter maybe the consequence of primates extirpations or a change of consumer taste has occurred or probably trade in meat of primates may have been attracted into some sought of black market.
A study by Tutu et al., 1993 revealed the Kantamanto market in Accra, Atwemonom market in Kumasi and the Tarkoradi market in Tarkoradi as notable bushmeat market centers in Ghana. The city of Kumasi alone has three vibrant bushmeat market centers, Atwemonom, Kejetia and Central markets. These markets are highly organized as small family businesses passed on from one generation to the next.
Comparing the quantity, weights and prices of the animals entering the Kantamanto market in 1974, 1985 and 1993, an FAO report 1993 revealed that whilst the composition and quantity of individual species marketed varied from year to year the price per head of all species had increased several times fold and there was no indication of decreases in the sizes of animals being hunted. This would suggest that although the populations of most wild animal species are believed to be declining in the West African sub-vicinity, hunters continue to put sufficient effort into hunting to continue supply levels.
2.1.2 Actors in the Bushmeat Trade
According to Falconer, 1992, there are five main types of actors participating in the bushmeat commodity chain in Ghana and come in distinctive divisions among groups. These are commercial hunters, farmer hunters, wholesalers, market traders and local restaurants operators commonly referred to as ‘chopbars ‘. ‘Chopbars’ are local restaurants that specialize in the preparation of traditional meals recipes containing ‘nwuramunam’. Falconer further discloses that commercial and farmer hunters are mostly men, operating in rural areas whilst the wholesalers, market traders and chopbar owners are all women. Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1998, commented that commercial hunters are complete-time hunters who depend on the trade in bushmeat as their dominant source of income. Farmer hunters on the hand are part-time hunters who hunt bushmeat in order to supplement their income from the seasonal agricultural produce. Although retailers claim the activity is seasonal, research has revealed more fulltime operators than part time. Out of 300 bushmeat retailers interviewed in 2001 by a Conservational International Study in 2002, 61.4% were found to be complete-time bushmeat traders’ whiles 38.6% respondents stated that they include in the trade only during times of the year when they cannot find any income generating alternatives. This indicates that a greater portion of the sampled retailers depend on the trade at complete time basis. Below is a suggested pattern of interaction suggested by Cowlishaw et al. 2003.
Fig 1: Pattern of Bushmeat Commodity Chain in Ghana. Source: Cowlishaw et al.
Fig 2. Patterns of Bushmeat Commodity Chain.
Source: Cowlishaw et al. 2003
Particularly unrevealing is evidence on the investment behaviour of the ‘capitalist’ bushmeat entrepreneurs. What levels of profits do they make and where do they invest them? Back into the sub-sector or in other places? Most importantly, commentaries are silent on the illegal rogue economic actors who in my opinion are the most active and destructive. Information about them is not forth coming but they exist to sustain the crisis.
3 Contributing Factors to the Bushmeat Trade
A vital significance of this issue is the complicate character of its contributing factors.
Almost certainly, the meaningful easing reason for the sudden increase in the bushmeat trade is logging. [Ape Alliance, 1998]. Ghana is a major producer of tropical timber in an African industry dominated by international logging companies. As they plow into the forests, they not only destroy and break up African wildlife habitats, but they also expedite the bushmeat trade. Logging roads are used by bushmeat hunters to gain access to the thorough forest and to transport the bushmeat out of the forest to markets, often with logging trucks . As much as the local people should be held accountable for the trade, international loggers must equally be held responsible too.
The emergence of intensified hunting strategies continues to contribute immensely to this wildlife decline. According to the Conservation International study in 2002, six methods of hunting were identified in Ghana. Methods include guns (60%), chemicals (32.5%), fire (3.2%), dogs (2.8%), cutlasses/clubs (1.3%) and traps (0.2%) as presented in Fig 2. It is however interesting that among these six methods only guns and traps are approved legally by the LI 685 of 1971 under the Ghana Wildlife Law. [GWD, 1999]. The high use of guns as a hunting strategy continues to be of concern to conservationist in Ghana. Molade, 2000 have indicated that most specialized hunters use rifles and other licensed automatic weapons. It is quite unfortunate how trapping, with time has been neglected. Trapping though non-selective it is less destructive. The survey revealed only about 0.2% use of traps and it’s the only sanctioned method under the wildlife law whilst the use of dogs, fire and cutlasses have no legal backing the Ghana Wildlife Law [GWD, 1998].
The extensive use of chemicals in hunting remains another crucial contributing factor that needs to be urgently addressed. Chemical use is not selective and kills indiscriminately. Consumption of the affected meat poses deleterious health risks to consumers. Two types of chemicals identified by the Conservation International Ghana study were organophosphates and organochlorine. A locally prepared concoctions referred to as ‘tangen or local poison’ was also identified by the study. Tangen is prepared by grinding the roots and bark of an native tree called ‘Nkradadua ‘ and broken bottles, mixed with some urine and kept for two weeks. Mixing it with any meal would kill immediately. [Oral Source].
The use of fire in hunting is rather common in the grassland savannah areas of Ghana. This is usually done in groups locally termed as ‘floater ‘ with the indication of scattering the animals with the use of fire. Members of the group are positioned strategically whilst fire is set around wildlife habitats. Animals are chased with dogs and cutlasses as they try to escape from the fire.
A maxim propagated by time as reason for this hideous trade is poverty. Some say that the exacerbations of poverty have fuelled bushmeat trade whilst others debunk that idea due to its unsustainable paucity. [Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1998]. According to Robinson and Bennett (2002), the twin imperatives of addressing people’s needs and conserving the world’s species, has suggested the alleviating poverty as an antidote to solve the bushmeat crisis. The perspective continuously being contested is the onerous view if alleviating poverty can stop the crisis. Although the importance of bushmeat hunting as a part of livelihoods is widely recognized, its implications have not been extensively analyzed. Bowen-Jones et al., 2002, in their assessment for solution orientated research to promote a more sustainable bushmeat trade indicated that bushmeat use is chiefly pushed by nutritional need for animal protein and as a livelihood. However this view may be seriously misleading. It encourages the view that bushmeat extraction for trade will freely be reduced by the provision of different protein foods. Hard evidence on the extent to which the bushmeat trade is sustainable as a livelihood is difficult to come by. Most obtainable data are qualitative and based on researchers’ perceptions. There is consequently the need for better baseline and longer term monitoring information to inform the sustenance of the trade and its impact on wildlife if any idea of livelihood could be nurtured. Wildlife populations, dynamics and rate of extinction by off-takes must be accessed under the obtainable best practice to provide information to conquer the generally assumed impacts of the trade. One should also be careful in nurturing the trade of bushmeat as a livelihood in market pushed native economies. This looks rather uncertain. There is no guarantee that the trade will generally guarantee favourable outcomes for poor people and there is no justification that its long-term sustainability may be an objective of those who may be involved in the trade. Potentially the private sector could capture the market instead of by those marginalized rural poor peasant. The onerous application of need and supply may have untold consequences on bushmeat as a commodity of trade.
It is also interesting how native people continues to be accused worldwide due to their efforts to sustain the trade whiles little, if not nothing, is being done to address the international need for wildlife resource. It is obvious that consistent need directly motivates supply. It is time the government to look at its tourism promotion excursion vis a vis the bushmeat trade. Ghana in 1985 moved up from the seventeenth position to eighth in 1998 among the top 20 leading tourism revenue-earners in Africa [WTO, 1999]. According to World Tourism Organization, International tourist arrivals in Ghana has increased steadily from nearly 114,000 in 1988 to about 348,000 in 1998, at an annual average growth rate of about 20 percent. With respect to tourist’s expenditure, international tourism receipts grew at an average annual rate of 41.3 percent from about $55.3 million in 1988 to about $285 million in 1998. This makes tourism the third largest earner of foreign exchange currently, ranking behind mineral and cocoa exports in Ghana. It consequently does not follow logic for the government to sacrifice this achievement for trade in bushmeat. The challenge rather is to find ways of harnessing this meaningful possible for wildlife-based growth to ensure that it benefits poor people.
Recent studies have also identified emerging infectious wildlife transference diseases and its risk to human health. Studies of SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Viruses) infection have revealed the risk for acquiring SIV infection which is expected to be highest in persons who hunt primates, prepare their meat for consumption or keep them as pets. [Peeters et al., 2002]. The handling of recently butchered bushmeat, in particular primates, brings about a risk of transmission of new zoonoses the report discloses. This risk, though cannot be adequately assessed because the prevalence, varied, and geographic dispensing of SIV infections in wild primate populations are unknown, it however clearly implies a probably possible health danger which should discourage the consumption and trade of wildlife meat especially primates.
It is also important to mention that natural resource-related legislation in Ghana as in most part of Africa has been long based on the preservationist logic governed by national legislations with an ‘assumed sense’ of protection. Prior to the 1920s, communities in Ghana managed their wildlife resources by traditional rules that protected some species and regulated exploitation. [Kotey et al., 1998]. Most West African countries adopted since the colonial periods a highly centralized, state-controlled protectionist approach to wildlife management. The aim of this protectionist approach is to control and control resource use, enforce regulations, monitor resource condition and use patterns and impact and where possible deter illegal and unsustainable use pattern practices. The first forest policy on wildlife was prepared in 1948 with little or no defined guides to ensure the protection of wildlife. The government later developed a conservation policy, which was adopted in 1974 as the Ghana Wildlife Conservation Policy (1974). The main deficiencies of this policy were its strict protectionist approach and its failure to include local communities in managing their wildlife resources. The year 1994 witnessed the formation of the Ghana Forestry and Wildlife Policy, which fortunately elevated the Wildlife Department to become a complete-fledged Wildlife Agency when it became obvious that most of the provisions in the old policy could not adequately deal with the totality of the emerging issues.
A major contributing factor to the failure of these policies has been the overly technocratic style of policy formulation with little input from customary regulations for which hunters and the general public understand. Evidently, present day legislation has a poor recognition of human contribution to the development of landscapes and biodiversity consequently creating the unfortunate perception that wildlife management is the responsibility of state institutions. instead of reinforcing the powers of local authorities (including decentralized local government), most program serve to diminish local ownership, being expatriate-led, top-down and trivially observe local possible. At the same time, the enforcement of government laws are not adequately effective because there is a serious without of resources, and a poor capacity to monitor national regulations nation-wide. For example, on the basis of national statistics, it is usually argued that the number of field agents active in wildlife issues is usually 1 person for 50,000 to 85,000 hectares, in most of West African countries. [Kotey et al 1998]. This situation is worsened by the very poor equipment of these agents (without of transportation method, communication, shelter, extension tools, etc), and the fact that a majority of them are part-time workers. Interestingly, Ntiamoa-Baidu  found that hunter income was the same as an entry-level graduate Wildlife Officer and 3.5 times the government minimum wage. It is obvious what the implications are.
4 Recommendations for Future Research
According to Salafky et al., (2002) any effective conservation would require addressing three basic questions whose answers can only be sought in conservation practice: (i) What should our goals be and how do we measure progress in reaching them? (ii) How can we most effectively take action to unprotected to conservation? And; (iii) how can we learn to do conservation better? Extinction is truly irreversible, once gone, individual species and all of the sets that they provide us cannot be brought back. Objective scientific information and methods are needed in Ghana for listing species, subspecies, and definite population segments as abundant or threatened under the wildlife laws. While non-scientific factors should appropriately be considered, biological defensible principles are closest needed. basic scientific information should not only include current empirical data, but also, for example, historic habitat and population information, population surveys, captive breeding, behavioural data, habitat and population modelling, and taxonomic and genetic studies. Recovery plans must be prepared based on the best obtainable science identifying threats, mitigate those threats, and must predict how species and their complete bio-synergy are likely to respond to mitigation measures that may be adopted.
Another area worth researching for further redress to the crisis in Ghana is investigating the linkages between native people knowledge in biodiversity conservation. Campbell (2005) commented on the insufficient attention paid in recent literature to the social and environmental factors which control hunting in Ghana. An examination by Hens (2006) on series of biodiversity related subjects in Ghana show that native knowledge has the possible to contribute to the conservation of species, genes and ecosystems. As Rose, 2000, puts it, conservation must pursue human-character bio-synergy in the era of social chaos and bushmeat commerce. A recent survey by the Conservation International on totems in Ghana revealed that over 200 totems in Ghana are represented by wildlife, and among these about 98% of these animals are abundant, threatened or extinct. [Conservation International 2003]. Totems which some suggest have helped to conserve wildlife in the past have been rendered ineffective by this ferocious trade which rarely observes wildlife rules. The local people’s culture and its symbiotic relationships between animals are consequently considerably threatened. As these cultural objects and perspectives become abundant their roles in biodiversity conservation become meaningless. Chiefs, tribes and clans could begin the search to restore their totems with the attributes of the wild. A typical example is the cultural efforts undertaken at the Buabeng Fiema Monkey Sanctuary in Ghana . As part of the native people’s commitment to conservation, they have maintained holy groves and protected areas of forest that have a strong cultural and religious significance. The groves are holy sanctuaries for wildlife and home for the Campbell’s Mona Monkeys and the Geoffrey’s Pied Colobus Monkeys. According to Fajey (1992) and Ntiamoah-Baidu (2002) villagers who live in the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary traditionally have a taboo against killing these black-and-white Colobus (polykomos) and mona monkey (Cercopithecus campbelli), which live the forest around their villages. The reconciliation of the different views and perspectives on conservation at this stage is most basic. This in no doubt affects the socio-cultural life of many communities in Ghana that are inextricably connected with wildlife. consequently our history and culture are in danger says Okyeame Ampadu-Agyei . It is about time all endeavour are brought to bear on all conservation efforts.
At the very heart of this complicate occurrence is the reasoning questioning the basic importance of wildlife to local people and how dependent they are on wildlife. In looking for solutions further research could be extended to estimate pragmatic mechanisms for working by wildlife to reduce poverty and enhance livelihood. Any effort to enhance trade without basic reference to some of these important questions would have disparaging ecological impacts on the ecosystem.
It is also basic to observe why people would prefer meat to fish already though meaningful freshwater fish stocks exist in many bushmeat source areas. [Redford and Robinson, 1987]. Fish farming, as a substitute animal protein should be supported to reduce the need for bushmeat. Probably the preference for hunting over fishing is largely cultural, and indicative of some kind of irrational preference for meat on the part of consumers. Some scholars are with the view that fishing tends to become more attractive when human population densities increase to the point where returns to farming and hunting decline appreciably [Boserup, 1965]. This assertion may be a general case and further studies should be pursued to study the decision-making issues involved in selecting either bushmeat or fish.
Furthermore, the development of captive breeding or game farming could be supported as an different to active hunting of wild animals. Several authors have advocated for captive breeding of game species as an alternate way to satisfy local need without compromising the wild stock. [Auzel and Wilkie, 2000]. There is evidence that major species with possible for domestication have long since been discovered especially for grasscutters in Ghana. An examination of differential benefits and conservation impacts of different modes of production compared to the wild harvesting would be most appropriate. This has obvious attractions where bushmeat fetches a high price [Asibey and Child, 1990], and logically, it could rule to a reduced need for bushmeat. Probably more pilot schemes could be established to test the viability of such game ventures.
5 Conclusion and Summary
It is very clear that the bushmeat trade leading to the crisis has been motivated by several other factors than poverty, as popularly claimed. The multiplicity of the problems require a multi-disciplinary approach both in decision making and policy enforcements. Though a number of conservation organizations have raised the alarm over these issues an effective action would require the cooperation of all stakeholders, including governments, conservation groups, scientist, cultural and religious groups, logging companies, and both local and international consumers. This has become necessary because it is becoming increasingly difficult to discriminate traditional from commercial hunting. harsh knowledge gaps on the occurrence needs to be addressed before concrete conclusions can be made. Wildlife conservation in Ghana must pursue the bio-synergy of humanity and character in order to find different ways to satisfy the human needs that excursion the destructive commercial trade in wildlife bushmeat. It is at this point clear that when wildlife is gone, it goes with it all its important benefits, be it protein for the poor or ecosystem varied. And without the animals, any shot at sustaining tourism in Ghana is history. Adams (2004) poses a question for conservation managers in the 21st century. He says ‘the big question for the 21st century must not only be broader, nor how to stop species but how to prevent our dazzling technical capacity and our seemingly endless desire to consume natures varied, from fatally undermining the resilience of the biosphere’. No piecemeal strategy will stand this complicate bushmeat trade occurrence in Ghana.
Adams W. M. (2004). Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation. Earthscan, London.
Ape Alliance. 1998. The African Bushmeat Trade-A Recipe for Extinction. Cambridge, England: Ape Alliance. obtainable at
http://www.4apes.com/bushmeat/report/bushmeat.pdf Retrieved on October 10th, 2006.
Auzel, P. & Wilkie, D.S. (2000) Wildlife use in Northern Congo: Hunting in a commercial logging concession. In Hunting for
Sustainability in Tropical Forests (eds J.G.Robinson and E.L. Bennett), pp. 413-426. Columbia University Press, New York.
Asibey, E.A.O. & Child, G. 1990. Wildlife management for rural development in sub- Saharan Africa. Unasylva, 41: 10.
Boserup, E. (1965). The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co, 1965.
Bowen-Jones E, Brown D, Robinson E. (2002). Assessment of the Solution-orientated research needed to promote a more
sustainable Bushmeat Trade in Central and West Africa. DI/DEFRA.
Campbell M. O. (2005). The ecological and social context of mammal hunting in the coastal savanna of Ghana. Geoforum.
quantity 36, Issue 6 , November 2005, Pages 667-680.
Conservation International Ghana (2005). Handbook of Totems in Ghana. Accra, Ghana.
Conservation International, (2002). Assessment of bushmeat trade during the annual closed season on hunting in Ghana. A
Clark, G., 1994, Onions are my Husband: Survival and Accumulation by West African Market Women. Chicago
Cowlishaw, G., S. Mendelson, and J.M. Rowcliffe, (2003). Anatomy of a Bushmeat Commodity Chain in Takoradi, Ghana. The
Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol.31, No.1, pp.73-100
Fargey, PJ. Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary-An example of traditional conservation in Ghana. Oryx. Vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 151-
FAO, 1993. Forest Resources Assessment. Rome 59 pp.
Falconer, J., 1992, Non-timber Forest Products in Southern Ghana, Kent: Natural Resources Institute.
Grubb, P., Jones T.S., Davies A.G., E. Edberg, Starin E.D., and Hill J.E., 1998, Mammals of Ghana, Sierra Leone and the
Gambia, St Ives: The Trendrine Press.
Ghana Wildlife Department (1998) Consolidated Wildlife Laws of Ghana. Ghana Wildlife Department.
Ghana Wildlife Department (1999) Consolidated Wildlife Laws of Ghana. Ghana Wildlife Department.
Justin S. Brashares, Peter Arcese, Moses K. Sam, Peter B. Coppolillo, A. R. E. Sinclair, Andrew Balmford. (2004) Bushmeat
Hunting, Wildlife Declines, and Fish Supply in West Africa. Science 12 Vol. 306. no. 5699, pp. 1180 – 1183
Kotey, E.N.A., Francois, J., Owusu, J.G.K., Yeboah, R., Amanor, K.S. and Antwi, L. (1998). Falling into Place. Policy that
works for forests and people. IIED, UK. Series no. 4.
Luc Hens (2006). native Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation and Management in Ghana. Journal of Human Ecology,
20(1): 21-30 (2006).
Molade (2000). Bushmeat consumption and trade in West Africa. FAO Publication.
Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. 2002. native vs. Introduced Biodiversity Conservation Strategies: The Case of Protected Area Systems
in Ghana. In Weber, W, L. J. T. White, A. Vedder and L. Naughton-Treves eds: African Rainforest Ecology and Conservation, Yale University Press, New Haven & London pp 385-396.
Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. (1987). West African wildlife: a resource in jeopardy. Unasylva, 39: 27-35.
Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. (1998): Sustainable Use of Bushmeat. 78pp. Vol.6: Wildlife Development Plan: 1998-2003. Wildlife
Peeters M, Courgnaud V, Abela B, Bibollet-Ruche F, Severin L, Cristelle B, Denis K. (2002). Risk to Human Health from a
Plethora of Simian Immunodeficiency Viruses in Primate Bushmeat. Center for disease Control and Prevention. Vol.
8, No. 5.
Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford K, H., Robinson J G. (2002). Improving the Practice of Conservation: a Conceptual
Framework and Research Agenda for Conservation Science. Conservation Biology. quantity 16 Issue 6
Rose. A.L (2002).Conservation must pursue human-character bio-synergy in the era of social chaos and bushmeat commerce.
Cambridge Studies in Biology and Evolutionary Anthropology: Pg 208-239.
Redford, K. H. and J. G. Robinson. (1987). The game of choice: patterns of Indian and colonist hunting in the neotropics.
American Anthropologist 89, no. 3:650-666.
Tutu, K. A., Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., Asuming-Brempong, S. (1993). The economics of living with wildlife in Ghana. World Bank,
ecosystem Division, 85 pp
WTO (1999) Tourism Marketing Trends: Africa 1989-1998, Madrid: WTO Commission for Africa.