WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE/BREEDING

Information and Discussions on General Conservation Issues
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67236
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

Coronavirus has finally made us recognise the illegal wildlife trade is a public health issue

March 17, 2020 3.24pm GMT | Simon Evans
Principal Lecturer in Ecotourism, Anglia Ruskin University


There will be few positives to take from coronavirus. But the global pandemic may yet prove to be an important moment in the attempts to address the illegal wildlife trade.

The media has generally concentrated on effects rather than causes, in particular the global implications for public health and economies. But it is also vital to unravel the timeline of the pandemic and categorically determine its initial cause.

What we do know to date is that the epicentre of the disease was in the Chinese city of Wuhan, an important hub in the lucrative trade in wildlife – both legal and illegal. The outbreak is believed to have originated in a market in which a variety of animal-derived products and meats are widely available, including peacocks, porcupines, bats and rats. It’s also a market where regulatory and welfare standards are rudimentary at best.

Some of this trade is legal under Chinese domestic law but the existence of a parallel illegal trade – often within the very same market or stall – allows some traders to launder illicit wildlife products into the system. This situation is very difficult to regulate and control.

We are also reasonably certain that the spill-over event involved the crossover of the virus from animals to humans, similar to the situation with previous contagions like the Ebola and SARs viruses. In each of these cases, the existence of large, unsanitary and poorly-regulated wildlife markets provided an ideal environment for diseases to cross over between species. In a country like China, where wildlife consumption is so deeply embedded in culture, such contamination can, and did, spread rapidly.

Image
Disinfecting Wuhan, March 2020. Li Ke / EPA

Chinese government has long advocated a “sustainable utilisation” approach to the country’s wildlife. It nonetheless responded to the current crisis by enacting a temporary ban on such markets, effectively closing down a significant sector of its domestic wildlife trade.

Biosecurity, public health and economic impact

In the longer term, the pandemic may provide the impetus to properly address the issue. This is because, while the illegal wildlife trade was once criticised almost purely in terms of conservation, it is now also being considered in relation to broader themes of biosecurity, public health and economic impact.

It is only in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak that the full scale of China’s industry is emerging, with the temporary ban covering some 20,000 captive breeding enterprises and 54 different species allowed to be traded domestically. A report by the Chinese Academy of Engineering estimates the wildlife farming industry is worth around US$57 billion annually. These breeding centres are allowed to operate under loopholes in Chinese domestic law, arguably against the spirit of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

The parallel illegal trade is less easy to quantify, but globally it is valued by the UN at around US$23 billion. Given the resulting pandemic could cost as much as US$2.7 trillion, even on purely economic grounds there is a strong case for increased regulation.

There are compelling arguments for dismantling the trade anyway: animals are kept in abject conditions, and the trade hastens their demise in the wild. But in China the temporary ban remains just that – temporary. Critics argue that we have been there before with SARS and once the dust settled on that particular outbreak, China resumed business as usual.

What would seriously tackling the wildlife trade actually mean in practice? First, breeding centres for endangered species like tigers or pangolins would be permanently closed. This would make it much harder for their products to be laundered through legal channels and sold as more valuable “wild-caught”. Enforcement agencies currently need to monitor these centres closely to check against laundering, and shutting them down would free up resources to disrupt the supply of illegal products entering China from outside.

Such a move would also help reduce demand. Public education campaigns tell people about how the wildlife trade (both legal and illegal) harms endangered species, but the message is mixed: the presence of a parallel legal market still provides such products with legitimacy and sends a message that it is OK to purchase them, thereby increasing rather than decreasing demand.

In any case the new Chinese ban excludes products such as tiger bones that are used in traditional medicines. Some conservationists and activists are concerned that this exemption will lead to legalised trade under the assumption that better regulation will protect against future outbreaks. This argument is extremely difficult to validate and most conservationists continue to favour blanket trade bans.

Another worry is that, given humans have short memories, once the danger has passed public concern will turn to the next big problem. COVID-19 clearly represents an unparalleled opportunity to combat the wildlife trade, and ensure that animal-borne diseases do not mutate and cross over to humans. But only time will tell whether this opportunity will be taken or put off once again until the emergence of the next – perhaps even more virulent – pandemic poses an even graver global threat.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Richprins »

^Q^ ^Q^ ^Q^


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67236
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

Conservationists set the record straight on COVID-19’s wildlife links

by Liz Kimbrough on 13 March 2020

- novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been characterized by the World Health Organization as a pandemic. As the virus spreads, so too does misinformation about its origins.

- Rumors that COVID-19 was manufactured in a lab or that we know with full certainty which animal host passed the disease to humans are unfounded.

- Given the clear risks to animals as well as to human health, the Wildlife Conservation Society and Global Wildlife Conservation are calling for a permanent ban on wildlife trafficking and live animal markets.


The World Health Organization has categorized the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as a pandemic in light of its spread around the world. Ever since the first cases emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan last December, there’s been much speculation — and misinformation — about the origins of the virus. And while scientists suspect it may have come from a market in Wuhan when a diseased animal was consumed or butchered, spilling over into the human population from there, the issue is far from settled.

To give a better understanding of the origin of the coronavirus and what can be done to stop the future spread of disease from animals to humans, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Global Wildlife Conservation have partnered on a series of new infographics.

Image

WCS is also providing regular updates on wildlife-related issues surrounding COVID-19, and has taken to Twitter to address some of the most common rumors about the disease. These range from the demonstrably false — that the virus was manufactured in a lab — to the unfounded (for instance, that we know with full certainty which animal host passed the disease to humans).

“It is most likely that the evolutionary or ancestral host was a bat,” Chris Walzer, executive director of health at WCS, told Mongabay. “What we don’t know is how the virus got into humans and which possible intermediary host it passed through.”

Image

Coronaviruses are a group of viruses with exceptionally high mutation rates that are known to exist in bats, rodents, camels and cats, making them prime for jumping from animal hosts to humans. The viruses that caused the outbreaks of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012 and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) from 2002-2004 are categorized as coronaviruses.

Viruses naturally mutate and are able to recombine, sharing different components to create new viruses. So wildlife trading and meat markets, where multiple live species are kept together and butchered on the same surfaces, prove a perfect breeding ground for novel pathogens.

“The animals are captured in the wild (or alternatively raised on a so-called wildlife farm) and transported to a market, where they interact with other species from other locations,” Walzer said. “Here, the animals are confined under stressful conditions, exchanging excrements and thus viruses before being slaughtered on-site. This allows for blood and organs to be exposed and increases the interface to humans.”

Image
Bats are thought to be the evolutionary host of COVID-19, though the virus passed to humans through another animal. Photo of bats in Madagascar by Rhett A. Butler.

“It’s just a numbers game,” Walzer said. “If you just put enough species together and allow them to share viruses and then put a lot of people in contact with the animals and their parts, then you just invariably will have a virus that can enter a human cell and replicate and, in rarer occasions, transmit from human to human.”

Given the clear risks both to biodiversity as well as to human health, scientists at WCS and GWC are calling for a permanent ban on wildlife trafficking and live animal markets.

Image

The COVID-19 epidemic may be the watershed to spur action on wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia. China has announced a ban on the consumption of wild animals; Vietnam is also taking action towards a ban on wildlife trade and consumption.

“Taking China’s lead, I think there will be a domino effect in the region, as all of these neighboring countries are highly interdependent and their markets are connected,” Walzer said. “These countries have legislation for livestock in place. Now, they are asking how to best regulate wildlife. What laws, expertise and monitoring are needed to really implement this legislation in a meaningful way?”

“Public attention can fade quickly. But once legislation is in place, it is there to stay.”

Image
Pangolins are the world’s most trafficked animal, but it has not been confirmed that pangolins were the intermediary host of COVID-19. Image courtesy of Priyan Perera

Cambodia, Laos and Indonesia have not made a formal statement yet on bans, but Walzer says these countries have indicated they are looking into regulating the wildlife trade and investigating what needs to be done.

“The world needs country after country stepping up to prevent future viral outbreaks by banning the trade and consumption of wildlife.” Hoang Bich Thuy, country director of WCS Vietnam, said in a statement. “If just one country continues to allow the trade in wildlife, communities across the world will continue to suffer and pay the price.”


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67236
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

COVID-19: Will African governments now crackdown on illegal wildlife trade?

Posted on March 16, 2020 by Simon Espley in the OPINION EDITORIAL post series.

Image
A long-tailed pangolin or black-bellied (Phataginus tetradactyla) confiscated at a roadblock in Madingou-Kayes north of Pointe-Noire, DR Congo © PALF

So, repeated warnings from scientists about China’s wild animal markets have been ignored and, as a result, we all have to bear the consequences and pay the price.

The loss of human life to Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is already significant (and rising), and the economic costs are probably going to be staggering, across the board. Yet this reality was far from unforeseen – this well-written and easy-to-understand New York Times article about zoonotic diseases from as far back as 2012 spells out the public health and economic risks of these markets and the burgeoning wildlife trade.

I have always maintained that the battle to keep our wildlife and hardwoods safe from the evil ones will only be adequately addressed if and when all governments (including African) step up and take action. Real action – as in shutting down the industries that facilitate the trafficking and consumption of wild ‘product’, including those with parallel markets that are hijacked by illegal traders for laundering purposes. Until then we are all just ‘pissing into the southeaster’, as the saying goes. Government priorities dictate conservation success or failure, that much is clear.

Based on my observations, biodiversity conservation is only vaguely interesting to governments because it underpins the tourism industry, which generates significant employment and tax revenue. It seems short- and medium-term jobs and revenue from environmentally detrimental industries such as mining, farming and manufacturing are far higher on the list of priorities.

THE BIG QUESTION

Now that we know that the trade in wildlife poses a significant risk to public health and economies, will Africa governments treat the issue more seriously?

We know that 75% of emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals, and bats harbour a higher proportion of zoonotic viruses than other mammals. Bat faeces on a piece of fruit eaten by another animal can result in that creature becoming a carrier. The Ebola epidemic of 2014-2016 in West Africa, the consequences of which reverberated around the Globe, is one example of a zoonotic virus emanating from African country communities that consume bushmeat in areas with rampant poaching.

I am under no illusion that the recent move by the Chinese authorities to ban the trade and consumption of wild animals was for any other reason than the immediate need to control the outbreak and thereby minimise the damage to their economy and political capital. This isn’t the first time Chinese officials have passed a law to protect their citizens against zoonotic viruses. In 2003 large numbers of caged civets were culled and their sale as food banned after it was discovered that they likely transferred the SARS virus to humans. The selling of snakes was also briefly banned in Guangzhou after the SARS outbreak. Today, civet and snake are back on the menu. In any case, China already has laws in place to ban the trade or eating of many species (such as pangolin), all of which are openly flouted. Says the South China Morning Post: “But the political will and capacity to enforce those laws often lags, undermining global efforts to curb issues like wildlife trafficking, air pollution and climate change.”

The wet and dry wildlife food and traditional medicine markets are big business in China, and pulling the plug on them will have such profound consequences that it may be an impossibility. Tandem to those markets is the US 74bn wildlife breeding farm industry (more than 20,000 farms have been shut down since the outbreak), which produces product such as bear bile, tiger bones, pangolin meat and scales, and porcupine meat. Despite the farms, it’s always going to be cheaper to process wild-caught animals into food and medicine than farmed animals because of the inherent costs of running a farming enterprise – hence the massive poaching drain on Africa’s wildlife now that the Asian wild areas have been all but denuded of wildlife.

To give you a further idea as to the extent of government inertia behind wildlife conservation efforts, even the demonstrated link between wildlife and charcoal trafficking and terrorism does not spur governments to take wildlife crime seriously.

THE ANSWER

What is needed is for African governments to overcome their cultural and economic fears of angering the mighty Chinese economic machine and that they (African governments) make the brave move to shut down the illegal wildlife industries that are draining our wildlife resources. This will not be an easy process, not the least because the Chinese government is already bankrolling some African countries. It’s not going to get any easier, and the longer the status quo continues, the harder it will be to break.

To date, wildlife activist campaigns have mostly focused on the moral aspects of the wildlife trafficking industry, and the threats to biodiversity. Perhaps they should shift focus to the threat to human lives and livelihoods. Maybe then African governments (including my own) will take this matter more seriously.

Keep the passion.
Image


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Richprins »

Supply and demand will be the only stopping factor in the end, presumably? -O-

So the Chinese public will have to come to the party.


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67236
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

And Vietnamese ed al.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Richprins »

:yes:


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Flutterby
Posts: 44150
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:28 pm
Country: South Africa
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Flutterby »

Do we know if there has been a drop in poaching since the virus broke?


User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Richprins »

Yes someone told me elephant poaching has stopped in Moz over the last 3 months. \O


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Flutterby
Posts: 44150
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:28 pm
Country: South Africa
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Flutterby »

\O


Post Reply

Return to “Other Conservation Issues”