“Saving lives, protecting livelihoods, and safeguarding nature”: risk-based wildlife trade policy for sustainable development outcomes post-COVID-19

Abstract

The COVID‐19 pandemic has caused huge loss of life, and immense social and economic costs throughout the world. Policy responses must minimise the risk of future zoonotic pandemics while simultaneously securing livelihoods and protecting nature, all of which are fundamental to delivering the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Wildlife trade has become the epicentre of debates on COVID-19 and potential policy responses, with calls from some conservation and animal welfare organisations for blanket bans on wildlife trade. Here we describe how wildlife trade influences people and nature in diverse ways (both positive and negative), with synergies and trade-offs within and between the SDGs. We also discuss why there is a need for a more holistic and evidence-based approach, which goes beyond the narrow focus of current discourse. We offer a simple integrated framework for assessing the public health risks of different forms of wildlife trade, and for evaluating them against other dimensions of the SDGs. We illustrate the flexibility of the framework by applying it to worked examples for different species and contexts. Our results demonstrate how the framework can guide evidence-based, participatory decision-making on wildlife trade, which minimises public health risks and secures other benefits to people and nature. We encourage decision-makers to adopt a holistic approach to inform national and local policy responses to pandemic risks posed by wildlife trade. Finally, we recommend that broader issues, such as land-use and climate change (and how wildlife trade regulations may alleviate or exacerbate these issues) are also considered as part of efforts to reduce future zoonosis emergence.

COVID-19—Zoonosis or Emerging Infectious Disease?

“…This has been lauded by many and may well have been the correct tactic as a precautionary measure, but the impacts on economy and livelihoods may be unjustified until the risk is more comprehensively understood. Indeed, coupled with erasing forensic evidence for evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 emergence, severe economic implications may follow, particularly for lower income communities who have been encouraged in recent years by government agencies to invest family savings into initiating wildlife farming (56,57). It is also likely that a ban on wildlife food trade will strengthen that black market industry (56,57).…”

“…Indeed, coupled with erasing forensic evidence for evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 emergence, severe economic implications may follow, particularly for lower income communities who have been encouraged in recent years by government agencies to invest family savings into initiating wildlife farming (56,57). It is also likely that a ban on wildlife food trade will strengthen that black market industry (56,57). These probable consequences will come with their own set of ramifications and may not address the underlying problems of disease emergence when we explore SARS-CoV-2 as an "EID of probable animal origin".…”

A tool for rapid assessment of wildlife markets in the Asia-Pacific Region for risk of future zoonotic disease outbreaks

“…China, arguably the biggest wildlife consuming and trading nation, imposed a broad ban on wildlife trade and markets [ 13 ]. However, there is also opposition to wildlife trade bans from several quarters, citing restrictions on livelihood opportunities and reduced access to food for local communities who depend on wildlife, and concerns that trade will be driven underground [ [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] ] .…”

Use of specialized questioning techniques to detect decline in giraffe meat consumption

“…As many people in rural areas rely on wild meat for protein or income, wildlife population declines are also cause for human development concern (Fa et al, 2003(Fa et al, , 2015. Further, policies that regulate wild meat use are tied to health, social, and economic implications, as seen recently with the Ebola virus disease outbreak (Bonwitt et al, 2018) and COVID-19 (Booth et al, 2020;Watsa et al, 2020).…”