The COVID-19 pandemic has made us all acutely aware that human health, animal health and planetary health are inextricably linked. For example, animals, including wild animals, are the source of more than 70 per cent of all emerging infectious diseases in humans.
The World Health Organization (WHO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) have now issued guidance for national governments to help reduce public health risks associated with the sale of live wild mammals. Among other measures, the guidance calls for the suspension of sales of live wild mammals in traditional food markets that do not have effective regulations and sanitary measures.
We spoke to Julian Blanc, Biodiversity Management Officer in the Wildlife Unit of UNEP’s Ecosystems Division to find out more about the guidance and why it is needed now.
Why is this new guidance important?
Many infectious diseases originate in wildlife. UNEP supports measures to reduce the risk of zoonotic diseases spilling over into humans and sparking public health crises. While there are many ways to mitigate these risks by investing in nature, we must also improve risk assessment and strengthen appropriate regulatory and safety measures in food systems, using science and evidence for potentially high-risk mammal species.
Is UNEP calling for a ban on the trade of live wild mammals for food?
No. We are not calling for a ban on the trade of live wild mammals for food. The guidance recommends, as an emergency measure, the temporary suspension of trade in potentially high-risk live mammal species for food in those markets where risk assessments have not been carried out and where appropriate regulations are not yet in place. UNEP supports the legal, sustainable and safe trade in wildlife rather than permanent blanket bans, which can often have unintended negative consequences.
Could suspensions lead to an increase in illegal trade sales of wild mammals for food?
Blanket bans have been shown to drive the trade underground and encourage criminal groups to engage in illegal trade. Bans can also compel people who depend on the wildlife trade to seek alternative sources of income. This can see some people converting land for agriculture and destroying habitats through, for example, cutting down forests. These additional risks need to be addressed by countries considering suspensions. The new guidance recognizes the importance of wild meat in diets but urges immediate caution around the sale of live animals in markets where risks of disease transmission cannot be safely mitigated.
But aren't live wildlife markets to blame for the COVID-19 pandemic?
The role of traditional markets in the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic remains unclear. However, unhygienic conditions in traditional markets are known sources of zoonotic disease spillover from domestic and wild animals to humans.
At the same time, traditional markets are an important source of nutrition for millions of people. In many parts of the world, traders and households have no access to refrigeration and so purchasing live animals helps ensure the freshness of food and reduces the risks of other food-borne diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that we need to do more to understand the risks of zoonotic diseases and the science behind these pathogens so that we can implement appropriate responses.
Isn't the wildlife trade unnecessary anyway?
Legal and well-regulated wildlife trade, including the trade in live animals, is an important component in a diversified and resilient wildlife economy. It helps to make biodiversity conservation economically and socially sustainable in many parts of the world. A well-regulated trade in wildlife also creates economic incentives for protecting wildlife populations and their habitats, providing opportunities for rural communities to improve their livelihoods.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a spotlight on the need for a diversified approach to conservation. Travel restrictions have dealt a blow to conservation operations in those parts of the world that rely on revenues from tourism to finance their activities in protected areas. There is some evidence of increased poaching and other forms of encroachment into these areas in some countries. We need to address these issues to ensure a green recovery.
How might suspensions in the sale of live animals affect livelihoods?
The new guidance encourages countries to consider time-bound suspensions for live mammal sales where risk and safety have not been properly assessed. Governments must carefully consider the potential impacts to ensure suspensions do not unfairly disadvantage certain communities. This can happen if additional measures are not taken to support affected livelihoods throughout the supply chain, including those of Indigenous Peoples and local communities who depend on wildlife for their sustenance, income and cultural practices.
What kind of regulations are needed to ensure safe trade in live wild mammals?
Sanitary standards, animal welfare measures and regulations for wild and domestic animals sold in markets need to be strengthened in many parts of the world. While roughly half of major recent zoonotic epidemics and pandemics originated in wildlife, the other half came from livestock. Both wild and domestic live animals and their meat should be subject to similarly strict sanitary standards. These standards need to be integrated into a risk management framework that defines proportionate measures based on both risks of transmission and potential impacts.
Action to strengthen sanitary regulations so that animal products are safe for human handling and consumption should go beyond wet markets and include the entire supply chains for both domestic and wild mammals without penalizing small-scale producers and retailers.
It can be done. In South Africa and Turkey, for example, health risks associated with the trade in live animals for food are successfully managed.
What factors should governments consider when implementing the guidance?
Governments must consider geography, demography, urban versus rural contexts, local practices and the mammal species being traded. For example, some higher risk species -- such as bats, rodents and primates -- are particularly prone to hosting potentially zoonotic pathogens.
UNEP would advise governments to take a One Health approach, bringing together all relevant government departments and stakeholders – including wildlife authorities, veterinary services, public health officials, traders and consumer groups – to discuss the feasibility and implications of any temporary suspensions.
Questions to be asked include: how would a temporary suspension affect the livelihoods of people who depend on the sustainable trade in wildlife; how can these people be supported while risk assessments are undertaken and regulations strengthened; could suspensions drive the trade underground and encourage criminals to engage in the illegal trade; and what action plans are needed to manage the transition to a safer trade in live wild mammals.
