Our understanding of global health has changed forever but will our understanding of our responsibility in wildlife degradation change as well. There is no question about it, we have an unsustainable relationship with our wildlife, however there is not one solution that can fix all of the problem. Wildlife trading practices have been occurring for centuries, and humans have experienced many zoonotic diseases (disease transmitted from animals to humans) in those years. The SARS and H1N1 outbreaks, just to name a few, were consequences from our wildlife trade and animal agriculture practices. Although an overall ban of wildlife trade would seem like the appropriate measures to take, specialists say that solutions are not a one size fits all situation. "Having sort of sweeping policies is not necessarily the right way to go," said Holly Booth, co-author of the report and doctorate student in the department of Zoology at Oxford University. A report published in February in Frontiers reveals that complete limitations of wildlife trading practices can cause a more significant risk to the health of humans and our wildlife if not done properly. Indeed, the way we manage our wildlife internationally needs to change. But what is the best way to do it? "You need to have kind of species and context specific approaches rather than having one big policy to cover all animals and plant species," Booth said. The wildlife trade issue is complex since it positively and negatively impacts our wildlife and society's prosperity. The researchers concluded that policy interventions need to follow a "holistic multi-sector approach." Before making a judgment, decision-makers need to acknowledge the trade-offs depending on the specific culture and species in question. The researchers explored six case study examples that represented a range of geographic and taxonomic diversity through the published data available on trade implications. For each of these case studies, they offered a qualitative judgment around each type of wildlife trade's costs and benefits. Booth said her research group decided on these six case study analyses because they were worried that the complexity of the wildlife trade issue was being masked. “Some wildlife trading practices are bad and others not as much and not all cause diseases,” she said. One of the case studies focused on the horseshoe bats trade in South China. The trade posed a high public health risk in terms of extent, severity and likelihood, and could create potential negative impacts for bat populations and habitats. The research showed that the high potential downside cost outweighed socio-economic benefits. The result was that a ban on all trade and consumption of bats in south China is the best option. The researchers analyzed another case in the study around live waterfowl (aquatic birds such as duck and geese) trade. They found that it presented a moderate public health risk with a high likelihood of zoonotic transmission but a low likelihood of human-to-human transmission. The trade also presents several benefits for people, including a source of protein, cultural value and income. They found the best solution is a regulated trade with strict hygiene standards and no flock mixing, with routine surveillance.
There are no questions about it, we know that wildlife trading practices have many negative consequences, especially when it comes to the health of our biodiversity. However, the complexities of it cannot be overlooked. “It’s also problematic when western cultures look down upon and think that it’s those people’s fault over there with theirweird eating habits. Whereas actually there is something that we can all do, this is a global problem,” Booth said. Developed countries are as responsible when it comes to the spread of zoonotic diseases and the mistreatment of animals worldwide. Although the blame seems to be pointed at the trappers, the biggest demand for wildlife animals come from countries like the United States. Many of the trappers of wildlife animals live in poverty and are very vulnerable to the financial promises the black trading market offers. “When those people trap animals, they are trapping them responding to trends in international demand, demand coming from wealthy countries,” Rosemary-Claire Collard, political and economic ecologist, said. Collard said the western way of life has been glorified and other cultures are trying to keep up with the demand. They (developed countries) have this this narrative that ‘we're more progressive, we're more civilized, we're more developed. And so how could we possibly be the ones who are wrong here,’” said Collard. As we have seen, these practices endanger human populations as well, with the current international knowledge of the Chinese wild trade of horseshoe bats putting the public in danger. “We must acknowledge the basic tenet that the more we destroy and intrude on nature, the more likely zoonotic spillovers will occur,” Dr. Christian Walzer, WCS Chief Global Veterinarian, said in a statement last month. The study also highlights some of the positive outcomes of specific wildlife trades. Some trades support hundreds of millions of people's diet and livelihoods, especially in the developing world, where these trading practices are part of their cultural identity. It has also helped with some of their financial situations. For example, the practice of American bullfrog farming in China is valued at around US$12 million per year and, in 2016, employed 24,000 people. Certain wildlife trades can also provide positive outcomes to wild animal biodiversity. Namely, saltwater crocodiles' well- managed trade has helped the recovery of its population in Australia because of egg harvesting initiatives. However, Kang added that "other continents need to learn from Asia about the risks and to think about the prevention to make sure it won’t be the next hotspot." The researchers also foresaw challenges that could affect how people in institutions react to any wildlife trade policies. "As a society, the trouble is that people's values are not the same in all countries," Booth said. There are also emotional dilemmas when trying to figure out the right solutions for a sensitive subject such as the environment. “I think sometimes, those kinds of values, ethics and belief can strongly outweigh practical solutionssometimes,” Booth said. “My research team, we're all very pragmatic people, but trying to communicate these ideas on a topic that can get people riled up can also be challenging.” There are however specific solutions, such as a "no net loss to human well-being" approach where decision-makers provide compensation to ensure vulnerable people have the opportunity to adapt.
Investments in infrastructure, technology, and the human capacity for wildlife trade monitoring and biosecurity should address many issues appearing with wildlife trade bans. The researchers emphasized the importance of smart regulations, including policy mixing, flexibility, and efficiency. Since many bans will affect the public's emotional response, the approaches must be transparent about their decision-making process and reasons. Aili Kang, the China Program Director of the Wild Conservation Society said the importance for the next five years at the least is the enforcement of certain laws involved in the wildlife trade practice and educating the public on these issues. Through such use cases, the researchers found that government officials should apply Plan-Do-Check-Act or adaptive management approach to find the most effective policy option. “If you oversimplified the issue, the solutions aren’t useful, but if you’re over complexify it, you’re never going to come up with some kind of solution that might be applicable to policymakers or the public,” Booth said. Collard said that another issue feeding the zoonotic disease phenomenon is our anthropocentric (humans are the most important element on Earth) mindset. “It’s about assigning billions of non-human lives to the realm of disposability,” Collard said. Even in the world of conservation, Collard said that the regulations and their reasons for it are anthropocentric. “It'slargely ultimately still about either human health, or maybe the population of animals so that we can continue harvestingthem,” she said.
There needs to be a recognition that issue is a health, political, economic and most importantly and mindset one. “It will always lead to widening our knowledge of inequality, not only between humans, but between humans and the nonhuman world that have been looked at as nothing other than their exchange value and use value,” Collard said. The study presented a call to action for fellow researchers and decision-makers to use the available data and expertise to consider the different costs and benefits to each specific wildlife trade practice. They must also be transparent through their context-specific risk assessments. “I do hope that to some degree, the pandemic does serve as a bit of a wakeup call to reset our relationship with nature and that everybody acknowledges that we all have a role to play in this,” said Booth.
Commentaires