 Hello everyone, and welcome to today's IID debates event. We're going to make a start now. We've got an hour and a half together for today's discussion, why eat, while meat, insights from Africa and lessons for COVID-19 responses. So today's event is part of the IID debates series, but we're delighted to be co-hosting with the Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science at Oxford University, the Conservation Foundation, and Foundation Camerhune's Teres Vivants. So with that, I am really delighted to introduce Delis Bro, who is a Principal Researcher at IID and our moderator for today's session. Delis, over to you. Thanks very much Juliet, and welcome everybody. Thank you very much for joining us for the latest in our IID debates series. So these series of webinars are really intended to bring together an international community to discuss critical issues of our time. And I really think COVID-19 is perhaps one of the most critical issues that we faced for a very long time. And the issue about why wild meat consumption in the midst of COVID-19 is one that really, really requires some deep discussion and careful thought. So this webinar is based largely on findings from a Darwin Initiative funded project that IID together with ICCS, the Conservation Foundation and FCTV, have been running for the last three years. So we started this project before the COVID-19 pandemic to really try and understand what were the drivers of wild meat, what encourages or discourages people from eating it. But actually with COVID-19 our research question has become even more pertinent. And we supplemented our main Darwin Initiative project with a COVID rapid response project also funded by UK DEFRA to really kind of pull out some insights as to whether COVID-19 had had an impact on wild meat consumption in Cameroon, our study area for the main project. We're also delighted to link with research from the GCRF funded Trade Hub project which is also looking at wild meat trade. So very complimentary to our Darwin project. So I'm going to introduce the panelists to you one by one and then I will be moderating a Q&A after each of the speakers and then we will have two respondents following the Q&A to just set the findings of our research and some of the outputs in a broader international context. So I'd like to start by introducing EJ Milner-Gulland. EJ is the Tassel Leventis Professor of Biodiversity at the University of Oxford and the Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science. And EJ is going to give us a presentation to really set the scene and the context for this webinar and why we are concerned about wild meat consumption at this time. Thanks very much EJ. Thank you Dillis and thanks to the invite and thanks to everyone who's joined us. I'm just going to give us a broad overview of why this is an important topic that will hopefully set the context for the rest of the webinar. So last year I'm sure many of you would have seen that there was a lot of focus on wild meat and the wildlife trade as a result of COVID and I've just popped up a few of the most widely used adverts that were out on social media around the place. And these are quite interesting. They do have a big focus on the consumption of wildlife as you can see with the top left one. And they talk about stopping the wildlife trade both in the context of pandemics but also in the context of conservation. Interestingly, I don't think elephants and tigers have ever been fingered as potential transmitters of COVID but these are strong powerful messages that have cut through. So in that context though, I think it's worth reflecting that when we're talking about the wild meat trade what we're mostly talking about is a livelihood for hundreds of thousands of people a lot of it in sub-Saharan Africa. And although mammals are the main focus for things like pandemic risk it also covers reptiles, invertebrates, plants, fungi, birds as well. So it's a whole range of taxa. So not all of this is illegal and not all of this is unsustainable. So the context really that we're trying to focus on is trying to bring it down to the people who are actually using wildlife most extensively particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. I'm not saying of course that there isn't unsustainable wild meat use there certainly is. And when we're having large scale commercial hunting for urban markets that can de-formate an area. And also hunting for threatened species whether it's targeted whether it's opportunistic when you're out looking for something else that's incidental can be major issue for those species. There's major concern particularly in areas like Southeast Asia about indiscriminate snaring causing major loss of populations of wildlife and particular concern as well about outsiders coming to exploit the food resources of indigenous people in local communities. So just setting that in the context that there is a big issue. However, I hope that just those first few slides have demonstrated that actually there's complicated relationships between wildlife use and trade and human well-being. And if you could put this into a kind of SDGs framework you can see positive and negative relationships in wildlife use and trade and various aspects of people's well-being. So when we're thinking about all of this we have to realize that there is a lot of noise. And it's interesting to reflect that although you know there's a whole set of people who've been working very extensively on the international wildlife trade in threatened species including I might add my favourite species the Saiga top left there. There's been a whole other theme of research that's been going on for decades now that has been focusing more on the development side has been focusing more on helping local people to diversify their livelihoods which will include wildlife but will also include agriculture in kind of mixed farming settings around the world. And those kinds of projects often offer a range of different alternatives to natural resource use. This is one project for example in Tanzania that offered in the same villages and offered to the same households five different kinds of project efficient fuel stones, rabbits for meat, goats for meat and sale, bees, the classic and also tree planting. So you know a lot of different ideas about how you might be able to wean people off dependence on wild meat coming from conservationists. These alternatives projects therefore tend to have two different kinds. There's the ones that tried to provide alternatives to hunting often called alternative livelihoods and alternatives that are alternatives to consuming which is more like alternative proteins. Often these are confounded often like in the project I just mentioned they're being offered together in the same kind of village to the same kinds of people. They may often even address the same households. So this is what we mean by alternatives projects. And they tend to have a relatively straightforward theory of change of this kind. This is a crude representation of it that you have this problem of unsustainable use of wild meat is the associated problem. They think okay we'll provide an alternative that will allow people to switch to that alternative and then the wildlife populations will recover. So it's coming from a very conservation angle. There's been a number of studies that have been thinking about what are those assumptions and are they well held up. And I guess the one by writer towel we identified three. The first one is that actually that theory of change holds that providing alternatives will reduce people's need for and desire to exploit natural resources. And that assumption is not as tested as it should be. The second one is often that everyone in a community feels the same about wild meat and uses wild meat in the same way. And therefore you could do something to community level that would actually affect individual people in the way expected. And the fourth one is an important one which I think is worth highlighting which is this scale up to system level change because the theory of change goes all the way from households to we're going to have a reduction in pressure on wildlife populations. And that also is not necessarily true. It was a really excellent study by Wakandan code a few years ago that try to see the extent to which alternatives projects work and Jasmine's going to give a little bit more update on this but this was the one that was published in 2018 with quite a wide range of case study sites and just kind of bringing back to what I said before about that project in Tanzania all sorts of different kinds of thing that were being offered to people. Pottery farming, snail farming, livestock rearing, cane rats, beekeeping, all sorts of things. This is the slide that's most important from that study however which just demonstrates that although mostly people felt that there was a small positive change both in hunting and socioeconomic benefits to people. Most of the ecological change was unknown. And the change that was highlighted was pretty much unproven so it was mostly based on no data, expert opinion and just a very few sets of data analysis. To sum up the answer to the question about alternative libraries, do they work? I think it's pretty clear that there isn't enough information to know whether alternative projects are working and particularly not enough detailed robust studies but it appears from what we know that they aren't working particularly well at the moment and this is a conclusion that's been found by a number of authors. And that is because of design flaws of unrealistic assumptions that appear to be right. Also to note that most analyses and most projects focus on livelihoods rather than consumption even though consumption is also important. So there's a big gap to fill there and that's where the YE Wild Meat project has come in which the team today are going to tell you a little bit more about. Just to sum up that I said at the beginning about COVID and how that has really brought things to the fore. The effects of COVID on Wild Meat are likely to be incredibly complicated and they're not going to take you through this very detailed diagram. The point of the diagram really is that local level behavior by hunters and by consumers is affected by all sorts of different drivers all the way from international to national to local and affecting urban incomes, urban employment, affecting national governments and so on. So there's huge complexity in how Wild Meat is actually likely to be affected by a thing like COVID. And if we think about what I've just been talking about in terms of demand consumption, there's suggestions that there might be national level changes in terms of marginalization of Wild Meat, whether that's because of people fearing it or because of more regulations coming in because of campaigns. It's also likely to be changes in food prices that we might shift people onto or off Wild Meat. And then there's likely to be all sorts of ambiguous changes in demand as a result. And the projects that Thibault is going to present later is going to try and unpick some of those complexities because at the moment it's very unclear. So my concluding thoughts are first of all that the very first slide, these calls for bands of wildlife consumption cannot ignore the realities of those who depend on it for food and livelihoods. Secondly, this scaling point that I think we really need to focus on addressing household level consumption of meat in rural areas will not lead to the system-wide changes we need for wildlife recovery. We need to think about urban demand. We need to think about national level drivers, other drivers of Wild Meat consumption. I want to highlight that international legal wildlife trade is manifested as well and it's mostly actually unconnected to this issue. And I think therefore that we need to shift from scapegoating towards rights-based approaches. I'm really looking to hearing what everyone else has to say. And yeah, I hope that gave you a little bit of context. Thanks very much, EJ. That was the perfect scene setter for the rest of the discussions today. So that was really great. And I think really summarises very clearly how complex this issue is and how simple solutions, whether they are sort of simple but well intentioned but misguided alternative projects or well intentioned but misguided campaigns to just ban everything are just not responding to the complexity of the issue. So this was one of the reasons why we launched our project was to really dig down and understand why do people choose to eat Wild Meat focusing on rural Cameroon as a detailed case study. Because there's no point in designing a wild meat alternative project if your project is replacing a food source but actually people aren't eating Wild Meat because they need it for food they're eating it because they like that specific taste or the cultural association. So you really have to understand exactly what it is about Wild Meat and about different species that drives people to hunt and consume them in order to then design a project that can seek to try and replace that behaviour if that is necessary. So I'm going to hand over to Dr Steph Britton who was the lead researcher on our project she's a postdoc researcher at ICCS so working closely with EJ. She's going to be talking twice today addressing two different key research questions that our project posed but starting off with really giving us deep insights into what are the drivers of Wild Meat consumption in rural Cameroon. Hi everybody. I'm really looking forward to sharing our results of our work with you today. So in response to conservation and food security concerns conservation organisations often support initiatives that aim to curb the reliance on Wild Meat for both food and income and this is particularly the case when meat comes from endangered species. So in many rural areas Wild Meat is a key source of protein in people's diets so if consumption of it is reduced then alternative proteins must be available acceptable and affordable. However there is limited evidence that alternative meat projects achieve their conservation and food security objectives further the assumptions underpinning projects may be incorrect such as the underlying reasons that drive people to eat Wild Meat for example. So if these reasons aren't considered in the design of alternatives projects the project may then fail to compensate for the key drivers of Wild Meat consumption. Next slide please. So previous research in the Amazon suggested that in urban areas human beliefs attitudes and social norms can actually better predict consumption and preference than economic factors which are usually considered to be a primary reason for consumption. But see if the case may be true in Sub-Saharan Africa. Francesca Booker at IED conducted a rapid review of the literature to explore the existing evidence of the drivers of Wild Meat as a food choice. So she included any peer reviewed or grey literature that described or assessed the drivers of Wild Meat hunting and consumption as they relate to people's food choices. And so the results indicated that there's a large body of literature on Wild Meat hunting and consumption but there's actually very little that deals with specifically the drivers of Wild Meat as a food choice both in rural and urban areas. Of the literature that did discuss the issue very few studies specifically evaluated those drivers. So for example of the 26 papers that she identified that noted taste as a driver of food choice, only six really provided any detailed insights into that. So drivers are often mentioned in passing but the actual causal factors aren't really properly evaluated. Consumption was primarily linked with availability and affordability while possible health benefits and cultural motivations for consumption were viewed as secondary drivers. But again this is without really explicitly testing whether this was the case or not. So as such they concluded that more research was required to investigate exactly why people choose to eat Wild Meat and this is especially important if effective response strategies are going to be put into place. Next slide please Juliet. So as such we conducted field work from April to June 2019 to assess the drivers of Wild Meat consumption and preferences in four villages around the Jar Reserve and Cameroon. So just a quick bit of background on these villages. So villages one and two, so the ones the south and the east then currently not involved in any formal alternative projects. Village one is the most remote village. Village two is located straight on a main well used road that kind of connects the capital round with the eastern region. So they have good connections to markets and people pass by frequently there. Villages three and four to the north are actively involved in alternative projects that promote fishing and cocoa production. And they're also located more closely to a park law enforcement base in particular compared to the other villages. So we aim to understand the importance of Wild Meat in people's lives, explore people's food choices and explore variation in the drivers and barriers shaping those choices. We interviewed 542 people from 177 households using semi-structured interviews. People would just ask how frequently they ate Wild Meat whether alternatives were also deemed available and if so when. When we also use an approach called free listing to explore what the preferred and avoided species of Wild Meat were. So a free list basically involves listing anything in a given category. So for example species you prefer to eat or species you avoid eating in whatever order they come to mind and then the resulting list reflects local preferences and also variation within and between the study villages. And we followed up that free listing exercise with open-ended questions to learn why each of the species was cited by the respondent. Next slide please. So people in village one were significantly more likely to eat meat more regularly than people in villages before. So again village one is the most remote village. Perhaps this is because Wild Meat is more available here or perhaps they depend on it more for food security than the other less remote villages where accessing alternatives might be more straightforward. And we found older participants ate Wild Meat less regularly than younger participants and we also found that men were more likely to eat Wild Meat more regularly than women. Farmers and in particular fishermen were less likely to consume Wild Meat as regularly as hunters which probably doesn't come as a huge surprise. Regardless of their involvement in Wild Meat alternative projects all four of the villages reported the presence of alternatives to Wild Meat. So alternatives commonly cited included eggs, chicken, fish but overwhelmingly fish was the most prominent option and actually the only alternative cited across all the four villages. But again in all of the four villages alternatives were only seasonally available. Village two was the exception here so most people here said that alternatives were available all year round. It's the best connected village as I said before it's located on a well-used road and people here are better able to access alternatives all year round from markets and paths by. So as such village location, relationship roads and markets may well influence the availability of alternatives and also people's ability to ensure their food security throughout the year. Next slide please. So having explored how often Wild Meat is consumed by different groups who wanted to learn which animals were preferred for consumption and which were avoided where possible. So this graph shows the species that were cited as preferred and avoided by more than 10% of respondents and the reasons provided for preferring or avoiding them. So what we found was that across all species the most popular species were brushed held porcupine and blue diker and this is followed by pangolin species so this is the white bellied and black bellied pangolin grouped together. Fish was the most popular non-wildly option in all villages above any other domestic animal. Gorilla and chimpanzee were most avoided, followed by leopards, tortoise and black colobus. So we wanted to know why people prefer and avoid the species cited and the reasons for species preference and avoidance were actually quite relatively consistent across all the species but there were species level differences in the importance of each reason. So looking at the graph on the left so taste in red was markedly the top reason for liking brushed held porcupine and pangolin species while perceived health benefits in green was the most commonly cited reason for preferring fish but it was also mentioned as a reason for preferring porcupine, blue diker and pangolin. So these white meat species were perceived to be lighter on the stomach and potentially better for the gut than other dark meat species. Older participants also cited that they preferred these animals because they were softer meats and easier to eat when they had dental problems which actually came up quite a few times. So ease of access in blue was the most commonly cited reason for preferring blue diker and that suggests that food sources require less effort to hunt are quite desirable. So fish were also considered to be easy to access by 25% of respondents however again with seasonal variation in their availability. So although not a major driver of preference tradition in purple and we're looking on the right hand side now. So tradition was cited by at least 25% of the participants as a reason for avoiding a given species and this was the main reason for avoiding black colobus, leopard, tortoise and dwarf antelope. Taste in red was also consistently cited as a reason for avoiding species in particular for large diker species and an off-putting appearance in blue was cited by more than 25% of participants as a reason for avoiding gorilla and chimpanzee and participants actually frequently shared that the fact that they looked too much like humans really put them off eating them. So we found significant village level differences as well in the reasons for avoidance but not so much in preference. So people in village three one of the villages north involved in alternative projects so they were more likely to cite the existence of law or fear of penalties as a reason for avoiding species possibly because of their involvement in education and awareness activities linked to well meet alternative projects in their village in contrast the law wasn't mentioned once as a barrier to consumption in village one which is the most remote village south so here people were more likely to cite tradition about taste and health concerns as key barriers. We also found significant individual level differences in the reasons for avoidance so for example men were significantly less likely than women to cite a lack of access but were more likely to cite issues like health or the legal status of the species. Okay next slide please. So in summary we found that while taste was found to be a significant factor in the consumption of wild meats in urban contexts the IID review found that the literature often linked well meet demand to availability and affordability in rural settings but our research found that taste was actually a primary driver of wild meat preference in all four of these rural villages so our findings challenge as common narrative that taste is viewed as a secondary driver in rural areas and this has important implications for the design of future alternatives projects so in this area alternatives in the future would need to taste really good. Furthermore financial factors were not even mentioned as a reason for consuming or avoiding wild meat and the finding that wealth is not a major driver of consumption in this area may be supported again by the overall preference for easily accessible non-protected species across all villages like porcupine and boudicca and that's obviously with the exception of pangolins. So in the jar reserve future alternatives should be easy to access they should taste good and they should ideally be perceived as healthy because fish was viewed as a healthy and preferred meat alternative projects offering fish might be a viable option in the study area although again the seasonality of availability must be considered and importantly for project designers globally the drivers of wild meat choice are context specific and so responses need to be equally specific so in our example village level differences in the availability of wild meats and the availability of alternatives as well as access to roads and markets may affect both the need and the willingness of people to participate in alternative projects so project designers should try to consider the role that gender, tradition and possibly ethnicity for example may play in dictating what people can and cannot eat so again these factors may not be the same everywhere in the world but it's important that the drivers of consumption whatever they may be are investigated before starting any project so these results were used to guide the design of the next phase of our research which I'll be talking to you about later on and that's to explore what types of alternatives people would like and the characteristics of a successful wild meat alternative project thank you many thanks Steph for those insights into the drivers of wild meat consumption and before we move on to the second part of the research which then responds to that and looks at the design of alternatives along came Covid and we wondered whether that would affect any of these drivers or make a difference to wild meat consumption so Tebow our colleague from Cameroon is going to present the research findings from our rapid response study that looked into this so Cedric Tebow is a researcher with FCTV in Cameroon and he led this part of the project so Tebow over to you okay thanks Leigh I'm going to talk about the study that we carried out the wild meat wild meat project which focuses on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on wild meat use and perception in communities so only the Japanese that is the GFR in Cameroon okay here's the context and objectives of the study as you know the Covid-19 pandemic has caused major damage to health conditions and the way of life population around the world the source of the Covid-19 outbreak is still unknown one hypothesis is that the virus could have originated or have an intermediary host in white life white meat is used for Bahia communities around the world as an important source of food and income it can be expected that Covid-19 has altered the perception of white meat as a food source among world consumers as a result of the measures of the disease so this study aimed to understand how Covid-19 has impacted perceptions choices and consumption as well as traits of white meat in Cameroon we carried out our research from February 27 to March 19, 2021 regarding the method we opted for semi-structured interviews based on a question not recorded in the tablet but in a global collect form the participants were at least 18 years old before the start of the interviews we first obtained their free prior and informed consent and we informed them of the possibility to stop a withdrawal at any time the team was made up of salut is on the picture and myself was the one taking the picture also in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic the interviews were carried out in compliance with barrier measures interviewees were also criticized about how to prepare the spread of Covid-19 and we were giving them source and hand sanitizer to help them face the pandemic concerning the study villages the research was carried out in 20 villages around the GFR 7 villages in the East Antenna and 11 villages in the North Antenna GFR is the Japanese reserve apart from the geographical location the two Antenna GFR mainly in terms of development indeed the East Antenna of the GFR is more developed than the North Antenna due in particular to the logging operations that are installed there this creates additional opportunities for the locals and the economic development of the region is also an attraction for coaches in terms of results obtained here we have in the table the impacts of the government response to Covid-19 on livelihoods in the eastern and northern Antenna villages in this table we can see that in the two Antenna the social economic impacts of the pandemic are very numerous and affect very important aspects of the life of these populations in the graph we have the consistency of white meat consumption by responding in eastern and northern Antenna villages as we can see the consumption of bushmeat has remained frequent among populations around the GFR with the peak at the level of weekly consumption we also realize that the weekly and daily consumption peaks are higher in the East Antenna than in the North Antenna this suggests that the consumption of white meat is more frequent among the population of the East Antenna than among the population of the North Antenna this will be explained by the greater economic development in the East Antenna than in the North Antenna with inhabitants having more money to buy meats and culture who are also more frequent also we can see on the sensitization sessions carried out in the two zones by various organizations we do not have the same impacts the population of the North Antenna being closer and giving even eventually more confidence to the NGOs present in the zone here we have in the first graph the proportion of respondents in the eastern and northern Antenna who identify different types of meat as transmitting disease as we can see this population believe that white meat is the one presenting the most risk of disease transmission and yet the consumption of white meat remains very important I have even received stories from hunters saying that they sometimes collect animals that have already died in the forest and come to sell them in the villages even though they are aware of the risk of disease in the second graph we have diseases that the population in the eastern and northern Antenna villages reported as being transmitted from white meat as we can see decided a wide range of diseases but that does not prevent people from regularly consuming white meat so these two results show once again the importance of white meat for this population who despite being aware of the risk of transmission continue to regularly consume white meat to finish we have here the responder where we have the responder where asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the idea of white meat markets closures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the two Antenna we have as results 73% that disagreed 90% that agreed and 8% that neither agreed or disagreed here are some few sentences that they said if you close bushmeat market how do you before closing bushmeat market alternatives should be implemented so as a conclusion we can say that white meat takes a prominent place among the population around the GFR who continue to depend on it as a source of income and protein despite the possible risk of transmission this study has helped us to rebuild the extent of the socio-economic impacts and also the cultural impact of the pandemic moreover for the population around the GFR this impact seems more worrying than the health risk posed by the disease itself our findings will help inform decision making and guide initiatives to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic around the GFR and elsewhere in the global area actually we are writing a paper thank you for your kind attention to the whole project thank you very much indeed Tebo so some interesting insights there into the impact on the ground of COVID-19 around the jar so reflecting on the drivers of wild meat consumption Steph is now going to present the second half of our research which was to then look at what kind of alternative projects might work and might work better than once so Steph back to you Hi everybody, fantastic talk to you thank you very much so wild meat interventions are often difficult to implement project design and implementation is costly and takes a long time as such to avoiding wasting resources and also to build up false expectations it's a good idea if possible to try and explore what the response to an intervention is before starting the project so scenarios based interviews are an approach that are used in many different fields to predict a future response of people who may be targeted by a specific intervention so discussing the future provides valuable insight into not only how people are likely to respond to the different scenarios presented but also the reasons why they may respond that way next slide please so we carried out our research from June to September so straight after the first phase in the same four villages as the first phase of the research on food preferences we used scenario based interviewing to understand locally desired features of wild meat alternative projects and to provide evidence of responses to a range of possible wild meat interventions prior to their implementation we asked participants to think about how each scenario could work with them and their household given their current time constraints and other household or livelihood responsibilities and whether the scenario would actually result in a reduction in hunting or consumption of wild meat in the household so we carried out 171 interviews and that represented one person per participating household next slide please so to give you a quick recap on how the first phase of the research informed the design of these scenarios for the next phase so our previous research showed that alternatives in the jar should be tasty, healthy and easy to access or easier to manage I should say than wild meat alternative than wild meat hunting fish was the fourth most preferred meat and the only non-wild meat options cited by more than 10% of those surveyed so as such we first asked people to consider how hunting and consumption in their household may change over the next five years if their current situation didn't change so that was the baseline we then offered six different scenarios so we offered three different fish rearing and three chicken farming projects at different scales so these were offered so keeping fish ponds and chicken coop would ensure that the meat is easy to access and would provide meat all year round so that would be dealing with the seasonality issues that were previously raised in the first phase of our research chicken was used as a comparison to fish because it was actually the top domestic the top preferred domestic meats in the previous research although admittedly not seen as tasty as fish chickens also often cited as a possible alternative in projects across Saharan Africa so we wanted to see what people's reactions might be to such a project so aside from comparing fish and chicken farming projects we also compared projects that offer subsistence only and those that were able to also provide income at the household level so recognising that hunting for food and incomes often blurred we wondered if people may prefer a smaller scale lower effort subsistence only project or one that would provide that would require more effort from the household but that would result in income generation as well finally we compared household versus community scale projects so because projects are frequently offered at a community or larger group level we wanted to see how people would respond to sharing the work burden but also making shared decisions about any project benefits so after hearing each scenario respondents were asked what they thought of the project whether they would like to be involved in such a project hypothetically and how they thought that project may affect their household hunting consumption of world meat over the next five years we then discussed why they thought that way and we delved into the perceived individual and household barriers to participation their motivation to participate and whether the project would be able to run sustainably after the five years of hypothetical project support was over next slide please so this graph shows how likely a reduction in hunting consumption is compared to the baseline so what we found is that projects that offer food and income resulted in the greatest predicted decline in hunting consumption so households were more than 20 times more likely to reduce their hunting consumption under scenario 4 which is fish for food and income more than 10 times more likely to reduce their consumption hunting under scenario 5 that was chicken for food and income then under the current business as usual baseline scenario however the predicted reduction of both hunting consumption with fish or chicken farming was conditional on the project being offered at the household rather than the community scale so the community wide projects so their projects 6 and 7 to the right of the graph barely reduced hunting household consumption compared to the baseline so perceived community level conflicts poor benefit sharing among community members in favour of those in elite positions were issues that were commonly cited as to why community levels would not be successful in these villages the project offering fish farming for food and income was half as likely to reduce both hunting consumption compared to sorry the project offering chicken was half as likely to reduce hunting consumption compared to the fish farming for food and income so this was quite interesting respondents in all villages said that despite liking the taste of chicken they would find it hard to imagine eating it on a regular basis they said that chicken is usually reserved for special occasions or as seen as a resource to be used in times of financial need next slide please so to wrap up in our study area we found that project offering food and income resulted in much better predicted reduction in household hunting consumption we found that projects at the household level performed much better than community projects which actually resulted in almost no change in consumption compared to the baseline so as such it's really important that project implementers consider the impact that possible power dynamics or elite capture or even mistrust may have on the long term successful project from the very start however if properly addressed community projects may still work in some cases around the jar because many people actually in our study site said that if these issues were resolved they'd be willing to try and participate in community scale projects next slide please so EJ already mentioned the work by Wakanda encode they estimated that livelihoods projects included in a literature review amounted to about 2.2 million dollars a year and again none of which has a real demonstrated conservation impact so if that is the case for wild meat alternative projects this potentially represents a massive waste of financial resources and also failure both for the biodiversity that these projects are meant to safeguard but also for the people who expect their livelihoods and food security to improve as a result of participation in these initiatives so we really must do better to try and consider rural people's food security and their preferences if we're to design acceptable alternatives that achieve both their social and conservation goals so what we've done is we've drawn together our learnings from this project and our experiences in Cameroon to create some new practical guidance for those who are designing and implementing projects to reduce the consumption of wild meat in rural communities what we suggest is that project implementers pay more attention to the early stages of project design to properly explore and account for local food preferences the drivers of consumption and the characteristics of a successful project that results in the greatest reduction in hunting or consumption the drivers identified in our study won't be the same everywhere else but the need to understand these drivers through proper engagement with communities from the very beginning is a key global need so in five steps the guidance explains how practitioners can help to develop the right project for the community in which they're working and support communities to develop their own sustainable initiatives alternatives, initiatives each stage provides the reader with a kind of like a checklist of considerations to account for moving on to the next step and also recognizing that the capacity for in-depth social research varies between different institutions we provide guidance for carrying out social research including several example surveys and templates the guidance is currently available in English and in French the Spanish and Portuguese translations are well underway and will soon be available to download on the IID project page so if you are a practitioner involved in the design of alternatives projects then we really urge you to look at the guidance and use it for your own work we're also currently looking for people who are soon to be involved in the design of an alternative project to trial the use of this guidance in real life so if that's you or if you know of someone or a project you may be interested then please do let me know next slide please I think that should be it so yeah a few links have been shared in the chat so I think we've got links to the guidance both in English and French as I said but there's also hopefully a couple of links to the online surveys so if you are a practitioner involved in the design of alternatives or a conservation policymaker we'd really appreciate 10 minutes of your time to fill in these surveys that are looking to explore the factors of successful project design and the kind of factors that you've identified as being important to predict wild meat consumption and preference and also if you have looked at the decision support tool guidance or if you plan to and if you have any feedback for us at all then we would very very much appreciate you getting in contact as well and thank you for listening and thank you to the white wild meat team for the hard work that's gone into this research and to developing the guidance Thank you very much Steph that was great and as Steph said we really really want to get feedback both on the tool but also on wider issues around wild meat through those surveys that we've put the links in the chat too so we'd be really really grateful for your responses to those going forward so thanks very much in advance if you're able to fill out those forms Okay our last panelist is Jasmine Willis Jasmine is a research fellow with C4 and also a visiting fellow at ICCS and carrying on the theme of actually thinking about wild meat interventions Jasmine is going to introduce us to a new database Thank you very much and over to you Jasmine Thank you Hi my name is Jasmine I'm going to be talking about the wild meat interventions database that I've been working on at the moment so first of all I'll just give you a quick overview of the wild meat project more generally so it's a collaboration between C4 the University of Stirling and the Wildlife Conservation Society and the aim of the project is to make the best information on wild meat available to anyone working on the topic so we're creating three different tools to help do this so the wild meat database will contain information on wild meat hunting, consumption and trade worldwide and then the wild meat library will contain up to date research on wild meat and the wild meat toolkit which will contain standardized research methods and templates to monitor wild meat hunting, consumption and trade and today I'm going to talk about a secondary database that we created which contains projects that implement wild meat interventions so similar to the wild meat database more broadly this database aims to provide those working in wild meat with the best available evidence to design effective management interventions so we selected projects that aim to manage or reduce wild meat use and consumption and trade at a specific site and so far we've started with projects based in Central Africa that were active between 2000 and the start of this year but we do have plans to expand this to other locations in the future as well so at the moment the interventionist database includes five different intervention types so alternative livelihood including protein and income law enforcement, hunting management awareness raising activities and demand reduction campaigns and here you can see the structure of the database so projects with multiple locations were split so that each location is a separate project with an overarching parent project and projects can consist of multiple interventions and an intervention is one component of a project that implements a certain activity so for instance one of the five intervention types here so as of July this year the interventionist database includes 285 projects from 10 different countries implemented by 225 organizations and funded by 116 donors and from looking at the database we can see that a wide range of projects have been used to help manage wild meat in Central Africa and figure one shows the distribution of the projects across those 10 Central African countries so you can see that the projects are kind of concentrated in just a few different countries so Cameroon had the highest number of projects which was 182 DRC had 69 and then the RSE had 67 and only four projects were identified in Burundi and only one in Chad although it should be noted that this isn't necessarily a definitive list it's just the projects that we identified whilst we compiled the database so this slide just shows a breakdown of the top donors and implementing organizations of the projects that are currently in space so in terms of donors the US Fish and Wildlife Service was the donor for the most projects which was 92 followed by the Raffford Foundation with 42 and then in terms of the implementing organizations these were mostly major international NGOs so for instance the Wildlife Conservation Society with 54 projects and WWF with 26 projects and this slide shows a breakdown by intervention type so over half of the projects implemented alternative livelihood interventions so this was the most used intervention of the five in Figure 4 you can see that alternative livelihoods are split into alternative income and alternative protein and we found that animal farming was the most frequently used alternative income and protein then there were 136 awareness raising interventions in the database and you can see by looking at Figure 5 which shows the number of interventions by year the awareness raising interventions kind of consistently has risen since 2000 and there's also been a consistently increasing number of law enforcement interventions as well which is the green line in contrast there were only 10 demand reduction campaigns in the database that we found although if you look at Figure 5 you can see that around 2010 the number of demand reduction campaigns has increased which we found coincided with this focus on reducing demand for wild meat particularly in urban consumers so we've created an online platform for users to be able to explore the database it's not yet live but I'm going to give you a quick preview of the platform so you should be able to see it here sorry I think there's a bit of a glitch there but you should be able to see it reasonably clearly so there's a map showing the project location so these are 285 projects that I mentioned before you can either click on an icon and view information about that particular project you've got the project aims you can see the start date the website the type of project intervention they implemented and then there's also some references if you want to find out a bit more information if I just go back to the main page you can see that there's a list of the projects on the left-hand side as well so you can also navigate through the projects that way and you can also filter the projects by country, start date type of intervention used and country as well and there's also a series of figures here which give you a few insights into the database so most of these are ones that I already showed you can see the top donors the top implementers and the projects by start date as well you can also download the original data here and you can also find out a bit more information about the partners and there's some information about the intervention database here as well including some definitions of the five different intervention types that we used and there's a bit of information at the end about what we'll be doing next so just going back to the slideshow so next steps the intervention database as it is at the moment collects current knowledge on different approaches to managing wild meat but we also do want to provide information on the effectiveness of the interventions that are in the database and this has been mentioned a few times but it's been quite difficult for us to determine the effectiveness of these interventions a lot of the projects were small scale projects with really limited funding and firstly they're not always published the details aren't always published and secondly very few of them monitored and evaluated their outcomes so it's difficult for us to determine the effectiveness of the projects based on just the information that we found so as a result this year we're going to be interviewing a number of project implementers donors and participants to find out a bit more information on their project outcomes and we'll hopefully make this information available next year as part of the interventions database so you can support our work by giving us feedback on the interventions database and the online platform that I showed you today and letting us know of any additional projects that could be added to the database you can either email us our info email or contact me directly or you can visit our website for more information thank you thanks very much Yasmin okay great we have got 15 minutes now for a Q&A session with the panellists there's some questions in the Q&A function and also a few from the chat that I'm going to bring through so the first one and actually this is sort of a more generic one and I wondered whether I might direct this to you first EJ it's from Mark Day about why freshwater species seem to appear relatively infrequently in wild meat research given that many communities will consume amphibians, crustaceans mollusks etc these are generally excluded is there any real reason for that that you're aware of I think that's a really good question so I guess there has been a tradition of people thinking a little bit more manly but often these freshwater species sneak into our databases because they are being sold so crocs for example quite often appear in databases a brilliant PhD student from the University of Ghana called Hannah Sackie has just done an amazing PhD in which she found in Northern Ghana there's huge sails of frogs going on that really are not noticed and that's mostly for local consumption and then the mammal species that she found in her bush meat markets were the ones that were being exported to urban markets in Ghana and further the field so maybe if you look at urban markets you might get less of this freshwater stuff it's more subsistence based but I do think that a kind of freshwater bush meat is if that's not a word a kind of contradiction in terms freshwater bush meat would be really useful for people to think more about and research more as Hannah Sackie has done and secondly I think fish itself and there were other questions about that fish itself as an alternative protein source and as something that is potentially unsustainably exploited also needs more attention in these study areas completely agree Great, thanks very much EJ and actually just on the subject of fish and perhaps I'll go to you with this Steph there were a couple of questions about fish so one asking how are fresh fish harvested in the area if they are very popular in this aquaculture common fish yes so in the area that we worked in so around the jar obviously there's the jar river so there's a few different types of fishing so river fishing in the jar river is a seasonal activity and it's predominantly done by men who go out in the dry season in the wet season it's too dangerous so people don't fish in the jar river during the rainy season which is why the availability of fish is seen as a seasonal kind of seasonally available women also do barrier fishing which does happen all year around but while it's available it's not really seen as like a primary source of proteins throughout the year the other question was whether an aquaculture is carried out yes so in the villages that I've been working in again hasn't been done but the idea of aquaculture was seen by people in the villages as a good way to get around the seasonality issue and the availability of fish throughout certain times of year but I know that FCTV have been working in certain villages not far away where aquaculture is carried out so yeah I think they might be able to provide you with a bit more information on that if you wanted more on that but yeah it is a popular option often for you Tebo a couple of questions somebody asked Cecile Sarabane asked the people that you spoke to that mentioned they were concerned about disease and getting food poisoning and so on from wild meat did that actually stop them eating it did it prevent them from eating it ever again or was it just something that they accepted as a risk and put up with there are a couple of of meats that can cause stomach ache or poisoning like what they call here fish and what the thing is that even though they know this meat has warm talk about warm the thing cooking the meat well will prevent the man eating it to get the disease so even if they know the warm is present in the meat they continue to eat it and I think it's also because it's like important for them to eat the meat they don't have a lot of alternatives so when they get the meat they cook it well and they believe it can prevent them from having the disease okay thank you and one other for you were in the findings of the research on the impacts of Covid found no real overarching patterns of change in consumption but it's been pointed out that with the Ebola outbreak that really did have at least a temporary effect on wild meat consumption so what do you think the difference is is it because people are just not making the connection between Covid 19 and wild meat and they're thinking that it's so uncertain what the causes are or is there another reason okay what I can say is that even when they are certain of the link between even when they are sure there is a link between the disease and eating the meat as far as they don't see someone around them having the disease they continue to believe that the disease is what they say down people is for down people or even people from abroad European, Chinese that's what they think I think that's because they have not seen someone having the disease locally some even think the disease was created for them not to eat white meat because they have never seen someone having the disease I think it's like this bloom yeah okay thank you and then I've got a question here from James Mayers Steph I'll direct this to you first but Tibo you might want to chip in here so just wondering whether it came up in the research whether whether people talked at all about the process of change and rapid change quite often in the jar so increasing market access increasing logging and infrastructure projects and so on and whether that kind of development was having any impact on preferences for wild meat consumption or sales Steph any insights into that yeah I mean I can talk about kind of what I've perceived and what I've heard from people who live in these areas so as I said at the beginning so Village 1 which is to the south it was quite a remote village there's not really well connected at all and it stands in quite contrast to Village 2 which is again right on a main road surrounded by timber concessions there's a timber concession base just not far up the road lots of people coming into the area lots of kind of infrastructure and development and lots of activity going on there so in particular in Village 2 for example people talked a lot about how hunting is becoming hard work how people are having to put in a lot more effort to go hunting to catch even porcupines you know things that they use as a standard bread and butter food in the area and I think in Village 1 that's those kind of changes aren't quite there yet but they are starting to actually happen so what we found as well with the actual preferences was things like taboos and drivers that aren't so much associated with the law with NGO involvement were less of an issue or were less prevalent sorry in Village 1 which was more remote whereas in the other villages that are much more connected those kind of drivers or like barriers to consumption were mentioned a lot more but yeah I mean more broadly I think that issues around kind of land use change and the kind of pressures that people in the communities themselves are facing in terms of being able to actually access meat in the first place are massively different in certain parts where infrastructure logging and things like that are happening because the space that people have to hunt is getting squashed basically and I think that that is suddenly a challenge in some parts of the jar and I hope that we wouldn't see the same thing happening in the south of the jar where Village 1 is located Thanks Tibo I don't know whether you want to add anything to that based on your wider research around the jar the impacts of infrastructure development logging and so on Alright I think Steph said everything when the villages are close to the road when there is logging operations around there they are closer to customers and the amount of hunting is directly linked to the amount of customers that they have access to Okay great thank you And then this one is related it's not something we discussed or addressed in our Wild Meat project because we focused on rural consumption but EJ you might have a few you have to shed some light on this from trade hub research David Wilkie is asking if anybody can share the light on the role that growing provincial towns and metropolitan areas are playing in wild meat consumption I don't know if that's something that's come up in trade and whether you can have some insights on that I don't have any personal insights but I do know that Kate Abernethy for example along coded doing a lot of work on this maybe Julia would have something to say actually I can say we've been working on changes in small secondary towns and consumption in urban areas and all that and if the question is is it growing yes it is we've done quite a bit of work in West Africa the moment that actually shows that certainly Covid is not necessarily having an impact on the consumption of wild meat in free town for example it all depends in the area but if David is asking is it a major problem in secondary towns yes it is if he is concerned about the fact that these secondary towns should be supported with alternative meat as we've talked many many times yes of course because these are the ones that are closest to the forest areas and demanding a lot of wild meat for them so I don't know whether that answers it great thanks Julia I'm sorry to put you on the spot when you didn't even know you were on the panel that's great I think we've got time for one more and this is just something that came out of the chat and it's sort of about a little bit about research methods so again probably going back to Steph and Tibo it's pointed out that stated preferences are not necessarily the same as observed preferences so how much confidence do we have that people aren't necessarily telling researchers what they think they might want to hear and another point was raised in the chat about the same with the impact of the law where people are of all species makers if they're concerned about legislation again is that something that people are just saying because they obviously don't want to admit to eating species that are protected by law or is that something that the way of asking questions can account for okay so yeah a couple of things on that so the way that we ask questions as you mentioned there did help to account for that so we weren't specifically asking about specific species it was a case of free listening so what are the species that you prefer and that you avoid so yeah granted people may think oh I don't want to mention that I prefer dead species I'm going to say I like porcupine and pangolin but equally then when it came to asking people why people prefer or avoid species as I said the law came up for some species but not really for others you need to kind of think that okay if people are just telling me what they would like what they think I want to hear they would be citing the law as a reason for avoiding all of these species and also people the fact that people say that pangolin species globally were a hugely preferred species in terms of taste as I said blue daica and porcupine were the two top preferred species but pangolin joint white bellied and black bellied pangolin came in a close third and people were just openly like I love the taste I mean I've got a few quotes in my head from people you know when I asked you know why do you like it and they said they spoke quite passionately about it about the taste and how there's no way on earth that there's any alternative project that could ever come along that would dissuade people from eating it because they love the taste so much so I don't think that they would say things like that to me if they were just telling me what I thought what they thought I wanted to hear great okay thanks so much Steph we will have to leave it there for time reasons on the Q&A there are some really great questions in the Q&A box that I'm afraid we haven't had time to get to if our panellists could try and type as many answers in as possible over the next 10-15 minutes that would be great while we move on to our two respondents so I'd like to introduce now Julia Farr Julia is a professor of natural science at Manchester Met University and also a C4 associate and it's just going to reflect briefly on the research findings specifically on the implications for the CBD guidelines for a sustainable wild meat sector so Julia please what I would like to do is give you a little bit of a background of what happened actually in December 2019 when we presented the information that we had got together with regards to generating sustainable wild meat sector and this was actually presented to the CBD to the parties there it was a work that C4 led by Lauren Courage we produced information that would allow the parties to be able to say yes to working towards sustainable wild meat sector what that actually meant was that we wanted all of the parties to try to understand first of all what we meant by the wild meat overexploitation rotation problem and for them to realize that we were dealing with three main things we were dealing with ecological impacts of wild meat hunting of course the impact of removing animals of the seed disperses etc etc the functioning of ecosystems we want them to understand the fundamental issue of the fundamental value of wild meat the food security and nutrition for millions of people all over the world and also the issue of all the fact that there are health problems associated with certain types of manipulation of wild meat overall we did this in two different stages the first stage was to actually produce a document that the parties could have a look at and actually agree to sign really what we wanted the parties to do was to be able to say yes we think this is a very important problem it's an issue that we should all address worldwide and then we would provide them with a technical document that would allow them to understand the problems further and perhaps even go towards doing things that like we are talking about here the question of sustainable hunting is still a major issue and not just in terms of implementing it but also understanding it in many ways so there was a tremendous amount of discussion in Montreal in December 2019 about these issues what was very clear as well was that we do have certain differences that are actually marked by continents in terms of what the main issues towards wild meat hunting and unsustainable hunting is all about and what I mean to say is that the Latin Americans have a very different view to what is happening in Africa and that was very very clear in the discussions we had in Montreal you know people were in fact I was in the situation in which I had to in a way intervene and trying to calm the waters because certain countries in Latin America were thinking that we were putting them all in the same basket and really you've got to deal with the Amazon for example differently to how you deal with the Congo Basin I don't know that gives you a background of that I think we have a very solid document and the technical document in fact is now available to download from the C4 website but you know certainly all merits to my great colleague Lauren and a huge team of people that actually put together all that information to try to make a difference worldwide let's hope that we can follow this up thank you very much Julia and as we're finding with the decision support tool as well the Latin American context is different to the African context and so as you know we have some work to do to massage that to make that something that is more internationally applicable rather than just just focused on Africa great thank you very much and I'll just turn to our second respondent Andrew Fowler Andrew is the regional lead for Western Central Africa with the Zoological Society of London and involved in many wild meat alternative projects and Andrew it would be good to get your reflections on the research but also quite specifically if possible on the tool that we've produced and it's likely applicability to the kinds of projects that you're involved in designing and implementing yeah thanks very much so just a bit of background Zillertal has been heavily involved in Cameroon for over a decade in two main landscapes the Jar Tridham landscape and Dweller-Odea in that time led by Fanny Junkum our community coordinator and Amundin Kumbu we've engaged in a lot of community projects including income generating projects and we've also done some alternative protein projects most notably recently the improved variety of village chicken really a local chicken for its disease resistance with a larger-bodied French variety to get sort of 10 kilo disease resistant chickens so we've done quite a lot of work a lot of it funded by the EU Epifat 6 in Tridham area and around the jar where Stephanie Britton has also been working so we of course from our experience we all know that the world meat issue is a landscape-wide problem and a transboundary often and regional and our responses are often rather smaller than that shall we say for a lot of different reasons I mean all of us have worked long-term in these places are familiar with the experience of going to communities with an idea to bring in some alternative protein activities or income-generating activities and finding out that several other activities have been implemented in the past and even the reasonably recent past which have more or less disappeared you find an old hen house or broken beehive or something so you know it's not for want of trying that these things have not really taken hold a lot of effort has gone in and a lot of very good work has been done but you know in my own experience in Central Africa I've seen projects for guinea pigs, rabbits, king rats, snails, chickens, dykes, pigs all sorts of animals attempted to be used for alternative protein activities so have disappeared without trace for one reason or another a lot of the time we say there's not that the funding cycle the short-term funding you can't you can't develop a project there's only three to five years but you know in for example the multi-generational EU funding cycles of five years for the last 30 years so there's been a lot of resource put into that but still that the sort of responses to the problems so the conservation problems are not to the appropriate scale so I see a lot of those project cycles where there's missed opportunities that we could have used to really engage in meaningful project design with the local communities you know these funding cycles come and go in between common that after a large funding cycle is finished you just find some broken down buildings and some abandoned vehicles and most activities are stopped for the 18 months or longer that it takes for the next one to come along it often then has a slightly different focus so there's not a continuity of approach even between those large funding cycles and you know and there are a lot of very good reasons why it is like that but in response to that we need to be trying harder to use those resources in a way that we think we're going to work better you know there's a lot of really good work being done at these small scales really really good work by very dedicated people including the ZSL team and other people so you know the willingness is there and the resources are potentially there but there's sort of something that's missing which is we need this larger scale it's expensive it's time consuming but you know you need to harness the resources over there there's no silver bullets there's no quick fixes and this document doesn't pretend to be that but what it does do is it brings the processes that we know are required the things that we use into a step-by-step practical document so it's going to break down these complex procedures like situational analyses stakeholder analyses F-pick, FreePrior and Fontencent theory of change break them down into these five steps with checklists and questions that you must answer before you proceed to the next one so that a lot of that sort of background work is done so that it's a more accessible way to do the things that we do anyway but in a way that it's not so time consuming it can be done more quickly it can be rolled out better I think you know constantly refining the process by answering these questions and then moving on to the next step is really a great advance in terms of project design because you don't need to then go back all the time answering the same questions you've already got the process the thing that I think is very important of course is the monitoring and evaluation at each stage and the very early engagement with communities so you don't go to communities with a shopping list and say we think the following things might be good for you which one do you like it's got to be better done than that you've got to go there and say work with the communities looking at things that make sense to them right from the beginning so that there's no feeling that's being imposed that they do do that a lot of people say they do FBIC a lot of people say they do community collaboration but actually they're going in at a stage where they've already decided what's the sort of thing they want to do they're not going in early enough and I think the research that Steph has done and the document that has been produced I think really highlights that which I think is very important that you've got to really do the ground work early and it's a toolkit it's not a set of instructions it's not that everyone is going to look the same like an IKEA coffee table it's not you put it together and there it is you're going to adapt it you're going to answer the questions the answers will be different in each case the background research that you do will feed into the refining of the process feed into the theory of change a theory of change for each project each area will be different but those are the sort of processes and the questions guide to thinking looking at the sort of results change I think very important and it's sort of it's not something that's going to sit on the bookshelf it's a practical guide so we're all going to go on and do great work in other places and get our professorships and you know Direction Constellation Organisations but that document needs to be being used by the people that are implementing these projects on the ground step one in a long process and there will be other documents to follow about urban bush week markets that sort of thing this document is in version 2 we need to feedback from the results of what we're going to do by following this process to then refine that document and make it even more user friendly more useful so for me as somebody who has overseen a lot of implementation and often seen it failing or not really being maximised I think this is an important step I think it uses the existing expertise, refining bit and bringing it back to the sort of go to the communities, talk to the communities, ask the communities use the resources that are available to do a better job I think really of what we are already doing and I would compliment all of the great work that's been done in this project and in many other projects tried in other places in Central Africa which is where I know and you know I know that we will do better and I think that this document will help us to do better, thanks Thank you so much Andrew that's a great kind of endorsement to round off the webinar and I think we're very well aware of the need for tackling this issue at scale and very well aware that this piece of research is a tiny part of the bigger jigsaw to address but I think we've all seen the debris of failed conservation and development projects abandoned buildings, abandoned all sorts and so I think anything that can be done to improve the effectiveness of those you know is absolutely critical in terms of starting to get the right pieces of the jigsaw into place and I completely agree with you doing the groundwork whether it's an alternative meat project or any kind of intervention doing your groundwork with communities is an absolutely crucial first step. We're well aware that there's loads that need to be done and David is putting lots of stuff in the chat about the need to focus on urban consumers and very very aware of that issue but we do also need to focus on the rural as well and get things right at both sides of the spectrum so yeah we do very much hope that this will be a small contribution to that. So on that we're now out of time it just leaves me to thank everybody for participating and thank our panelists, EJ, Steph, Tebow and Jasmine and also our respondents Julia and Andrew and I hope this was interesting and we very much look forward to getting feedback from people on the tool and on the surveys for the webinar itself so thanks very much everybody