| Notes |
1
Open letter to World Health Organisation and United Nations Environment Programme
Dear Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Ms. Inger Andersen,
CC: Achim Steiner, Administrator UNDP
Elizabeth M. Mrema, Acting Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD
Qu Dongyu, Director General, Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO
Ivonne Higuero, CITES Secretary General
Grethel Aguilar, Acting Director General, IUCN
Michelle Bachelet, UN Human Rights Commissioner
David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment
David Nabarro, Special Envoy to WHO DG on COVID-19
COVID-19: Holistic, equitable solutions are required to improve human and planetary health
and reduce zoonotic pandemic risks
We, the undersigned individuals and organisations, commend the work the UN is doing to tackle
the COVID-19 disease pandemic and its socio-economic consequences1
. The recently released
UN Framework for the immediate socio-economic response to COVID-19 outlines the importance
of shared responsibility and integration2
. However, more action is required, particularly on the
environmental front. Urgent, far-reaching steps must be taken to reduce zoonotic pandemic risks
and secure a better future not only for humans but also for nature, which underpins the health
and well-being of all humanity3
. It is vital that any actions taken are appropriate and lead to
socially just outcomes which contribute to – not detract from – the development of economically
resilient livelihoods for those hundreds of millions of the world’s most vulnerable who depend
on wild resources for their survival.
COVID-19 is inflicting unprecedented social and economic costs on countries and communities,
with the poor and vulnerable hardest hit. The virus’s suspected links with a Chinese ‘wet market’
has led to calls to ban wet markets and restrict or end the trade and consumption – for medicines
or food - of wildlife4
. However, indiscriminate bans and restrictions risk being inequitable and
ineffective. Wet markets, wildlife trade and consumption, and disease risks are all complex
subjects. Wet markets (not all of which sell wild meat) provide invaluable food security; billions
of people worldwide trade or consume wild meat and rely on wildlife use for livelihoods, while
diseases are transmitted from livestock as well as wildlife.
There is an urgent need to tackle wildlife trade that is illegal, unsustainable or carries major risks
to human health, biodiversity or animal welfare. Certain high-risk activities may rightfully
necessitate targeted and/or time-bound bans, or severe restrictions (and rigorous enforcement),
1 www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-working-fight-covid-19-and-achieve-global-goals
2 https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/SG-Report-Socio-Economic-Impact-of-Covid19.pdf
3 https://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/reports/health_rioconventions.pdf
4 https://www.bornfree.org.uk/storage/media/content/files/WildlifeMarketClosureLetter_Feb20_FINALV3_1.pdf
2
but it is vital that any such action is specific, appropriate, and equitable. If those targeted bans or
severe restrictions are implemented, they should be accompanied by the meaningful provision
of suitable alternative livelihoods for people affected. Furthermore, long-term success will
require a holistic approach, including tackling issues like land conversion and industrial
agriculture, which are major drivers of pandemic risk as well as biodiversity loss5
. Any actions
must be undertaken in a targeted and socially just manner with due regard for human rights.
We recommend that the WHO and UNEP use their individual and collective expertise to:
1. Work with the appropriate experts to identify areas and activities where wildlife trade
and/or use poses high risks to zoonotic disease transmission, biodiversity conservation or
welfare, and strengthen or develop tailored, locally appropriate strategies, with suitably
improved regulation and enforcement, along the entire supply chain to reduce those risks;
2. Initiate a coordinated response to the risks of pandemic emergence and biodiversity loss
through the UN Environmental Management Group to raise intergovernmental awareness of the
important role biodiversity plays in underpinning human health, the health risks associated with
habitat destruction, and the value of sustainable use of biological resources (in line with Article
1 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and guided by its 2004 Addis Ababa Principles);
3. Build partnerships across WHO, UNEP and other key stakeholders including IUCN, FAO
and WTO, to explore how health considerations could be better aligned with trade regulations
within the CITES framework, in clear recognition that biodiversity loss, unregulated trade and
human health are inextricably linked;
4. Effectively engage with the CBD’s ongoing process to develop the post-2020 Global
Biodiversity Framework and associated resource mobilization strategy to ensure biodiversity is
valued, conserved, restored and wisely used;
5. Support science- and human-rights-based, equitable approaches to conservation, in order
to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, and deliver comprehensive improvements to
both human and planetary health.
The reasons for our recommendations are set out in Annexe A, below the signatory list. 300 of
the signatories (160 organisational signatories and 140 individual signatories) are shown below –
more on online and will continue to be collected:
Organisational signatories
1. !Khaodi // Hoas Conservancy Kunene South, Namibia
2. 1StopBorneo Wildlife, Brunei
3. African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Kenya/International
4. Afrivet, South Africa
5. Ambrosisus A. Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
5 http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/COVID-19_CommuniqueEN.pdf
3
6. Anabeb Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
7. Asocaiman, Colombia
8. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, USA
9. Association OKANI, Cameroon
10. Aube Novelle pour la Femme et le Development (AFND), Democratic Republic of the
Congo
11. Balepye Community, South Africa
12. Botswana Wildlife Producers Association (BWPA), Botswana
13. Cameroon Youth Biodiversity Network, Cameroon
14. CAMPFIRE Association, Zimbabwe
15. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, US/international
16. Climate Change Coalition Group, Zimbabwe
17. COMFAUNA (Comunidad de Manejo de Fauna Silvestre en Amazonía y América Latina,
Latin America
18. Conservation Alliance International, Ghana
19. Conservation Alliance Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone
20. Conservation Frontlines Foundation, USA/South Africa
21. Conservation Outcomes, South Africa
22. Conservation Through Public Health, Uganda
23. Conservation Visions, Canada
24. Creative Conservation Solutions, Australia
25. Cuma CF Communioty Forest Kavango West, Namibia
26. Custodians of Professional Hunting and Conservation-SA, South Africa
27. Dallas Safari Club, USA
28. Earthmind, Switzerland
29. Eco Ranger Group, South Africa
30. EcoHealth Alliance, USA
31. Ecolife Expeditions, South Africa
32. Ehirovipuka Conservancy - Kunene Region, Namibia
33. Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa
34. Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (ECOTRUST), Uganda
35. Environmental Foundation for Africa, Sierra Leone
36. Epupa Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
37. Erongo Regional Conservancy Association (North West), Namibia
38. Etanga Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
39. European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE), Belgium
40. European Sustainable Use Group, UK
41. Farm Africa, UK/International
42. Fondation Camerounaise Terre Vivante (FCTV), Cameroon
43. Frankfurt Zoological Society, Germany/International
44. FundAmazonia, Peru
4
45. Fur Institute of Canada (FIC), Canada
46. Game Ranchers Forum, South Africa
47. Gcatjinga Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
48. Gender CC Woman for Climate Justice, South Africa
49. Geo Wild Consult, South Africa
50. George Mukoya Conservancy Kavango East, Namibia
51. Giraffe Conservation Foundation, Namibia/International
52. Gonarezhou Conservation Trust, Zimbabwe
53. Greenhood Nepal, Nepal
54. Guide Outfitting Association of British Columbia, Canada
55. Hans Kanyinga Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
56. Houston Safari Club, USA
57. Huab Conservancy ( Kunene Region), Namibia
58. Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC) , Namibia
59. Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science and Oxford Martin Programme on the
Illegal Wildlife Trade, UK
60. International Fur Federation, UK/International
61. Ipumbu Ya Tshilongo ( North Central ), Namibia
62. IUCN Group Sustainable Use and Management of Ecosystems (SUME), International
63. IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group, International
64. IUCN SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, International
65. IUCN SSC-CEESP Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi), International
66. IUCN Wildlife Health Specialist Group, International
67. Wildlife Producers Association of Zambia, Zambia
68. IWMC World Conservation Trust, Switzerland/International
69. Jamma International, UK/International
70. Japan Falconiformes Center, Japan
71. Kahenge Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
72. Kapinga Kabwalye Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
73. Kasungu Wildlife Conservation for Community Development, Malawi
74. Katope Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
75. Keystone Foundation, India
76. Kunene Conservancy Association (KRCCA), Namibia
77. Kunene River Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
78. Likwaterera Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
79. Lion Landscapes, Kenya
80. Mahenye Community Committee, Zimbabwe
81. Malagasy Youth Biodiversity Network, Madagascar
82. Marienfluss Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
83. Masoka CAMPFIRE Association, Zimbabwe
84. Masoka Community, Zimbabwe
5
85. Maurisi Nekaro Conservancy Kavango East, Namibia
86. Mbeyo Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
87. Mbire Rural District Council, Zimbabwe
88. Muduva Nyangana Conservancy (Kavango East), Namibia
89. Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF), Namibia
90. Namibian Chamber of Environment, Namibia
91. Namibian Organisation of CBNRM Support Organisations (NACSO), Namibia
92. Ncamacoro Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
93. Ncaute Community Forest Kavango West, Namibia
94. Ngamiland Council of Non-Governmental Organisations (NCONGO), Botswana
95. Norwegian Pet Trade Association, Norway
96. Okandundumba Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
97. Okanguati Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
98. Okatjandjakozomenje Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
99. Okondjombo Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
100. Okongoro Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
101. Ombazu Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
102. Ombombo masitu Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
103. Ombujokanguindi Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
104. Ongongo Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
105. Ornamental Fish International (OFI), The Netherlands
106. Orupembe Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
107. Orupupa Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
108. Otjambangu Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
109. Otji West Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
110. Otjikondavirongo Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
111. Otjikongo Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
112. Otjimboyo Conservancy ( Erongo Region), Namibia
113. Otjindjerese Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
114. Otjitanda Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
115. Otjombande Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
116. Otuzemba Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
117. Ozondundu Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
118. People for Pangolins, International
119. Puros Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
120. Resource Africa South Africa, South Africa
121. Resource Africa UK, UK
122. Ruaha Carnivore Project, Tanzania
123. Safari Club International Foundation, USA
124. Sanitatis Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
125. Save the Rhino Trust Namibia, Namibia
6
126. Sesfontein Conservancy Kunene, Namibia
127. Sheya Shuushona Conservancy ( North Central Regions), Namibia
128. Sidinda Community Comiittee, Zimbabwe
129. Sikunga Conservancy ( Zambezi Region), Namibia
130. Sorris Sorris Conservancy ( Southern Kunene), Namibia
131. South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association, South Africa
132. South African Wingshooters Association , South Africa
133. South African Youth Biodiversity Network, South Africa
134. South Asia Reptile Conservation Alliance, International
135. Southern African Wildlife Management Association, South Africa
136. Stellenbosch University, South Africa
137. Support for Women in Agriculture and Environment (SWAGEN), Uganda
138. Sustainable Users Network (SUN), UK
139. Tanzania Natural Resources Forum (TNRF), Tanzania
140. The Conservation Coalition Botswana (TCCB), Botswana
141. The Development Institute, Ghana
142. The Game Rangers Association of Africa (GRAA), South Africa
143. The Wildlife Society, USA
144. Torra Conservancy Kunene South, Namibia
145. Tsiseb Conservancy (Erongo Region), Namibia
146. Uibasen Conservancy (Southern Kunene) , Namibia
147. Uukwaludhi Conservancy (North Central Regions), Namibia
148. Wild Africa Conservation, Niger
149. Wild Sheep Foundation, USA
150. Wildlife & Environment Society of Southern Africa, South Africa
151. Wildlife Environmental Society of Malawi, Malawi
152. Wildlife Producers Association, South Africa
153. Wildlife Producers Association of Zambia, Zambia
154. Wildlife Ranching South Africa, South Africa
155. WILDOCEANS, South Africa
156. Women Environmental Programme (WEP), Nigeria
157. Women in Conservation ( Kunene Region), Namibia
158. Working Dogs for Conservation, USA
159. Zambia CBNRM Association, Zambia
160. Zambia National Community Resources Board Association, Zambia
Individual signatories
1. Vanessa Adams, University of Tasmania, Australia
2. Steve Alexander, Conservation and Wildlife Fund, Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe
3. Benjamin Allen, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
4. Shaista Andleeb, Wuhan University of Technology, China
7
5. Peter Apps, Botswana Predator Conservation, Botswana
6. Michael Archer, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Australia
7. Nathan J Bennett, IUCN CEESP/SSC SULi Central Asia, Canada
8. Duan Biggs, Griffith University, Australia
9. Bernd Blossey, Cornell University, USA
10. Hollie Booth, ICCS, University of Oxford, UK
11. Adri Kitshoff Botha, Wildlife Ranching South Africa, South Africa
12. Peadar Brehony, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, UK
13. Peter Bridgewater, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Netherlands
14. Stephanie Brittain, Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, UK
15. Christopher Brown, Namibian Chamber of Environment, Namibia
16. Francois du Toit, Project Africa, Sweden
17. Donna-Maree Cawthorn, University of Mpumalanga, South Africa
18. Dan Challender, University of Oxford, UK
19. Philippe Chardonnet, IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, France
20. Brian Child, University of Florida, USA
21. Simon Clulow, Macquarie University, Australia
22. John Clulow, University of Newcastle, Australia
23. Peter Coals GR, WildCRU, University of Oxford, UK
24. Bernard Coetzee, Global Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
25. Calvin Cottar, Cottars Wildlife Conservation Trust, Kenya
26. Alayne Cotterill, WildCRU, University of Oxford, UK
27. Marianne Courouble, International Biodiversity Consulting, France
28. Jeremy Cusack, Universidad Mayor, Santiago, Chile
29. Harriet Davies-Mostert, Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa
30. Emiel de Lange, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, UK
31. Amy Dickman, WildCRU, University of Oxford, UK
32. Egil Droge, WildCRU, University of Oxford, UK
33. Morné du Plessis, WWF South Africa, South Africa
34. Byron du Preez, Jesus College, University of Oxford, UK
35. Holly Dublin, IUCN SULi, Kenya
36. Sarah Durant, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, UK
37. John E. Fa, CIFOR, UK
38. Christo Fabricius, Nelson Mandela University, South Africa and member of IUCN
Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP), South Africa
39. Ruth Feber, WildCRU, University of Oxford, UK
40. Marco Festa-Bianchet, Canada
41. Svein A. Fosså, Norwegian Pet Trade Association (NZB), Norway
42. Edson Gandiwa, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Zimbabwe
43. Tuqa Jirmo, Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, Kenya
44. Jenny A. Glikman, San Diego Zoo, USA
8
45. Paul Goriup, NatureBureau, UK
46. Andrea Griffin , University of Newcastle , Australia
47. Sunetra Gupta, University of Oxford, UK
48. John Hanks, Independent Environmental Consultant, South Africa
49. Darragh Hare, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, USA
50. Alasdair Harris, Blue Ventures, UK
51. Adam Hart, University of Gloucestershire, UK
52. Matt Hayward, University of Newcastle, Australia
53. Juan Herrero, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain
54. Rachel Hoffmann, University of Cambridge, UK
55. Hiromasa Igota, Rakuno Gakuen University, Japan
56. Wei JI, IUCN SULi, China
57. Paul Johnson, University of Oxford, UK
58. Khalil Karimov, IUCN CEESP/SSC SULi, Tajikistan
59. Graham I.H. Kerley, Nelson Mandela University, South Africa
60. Ambika Khatiwada, National Trust for Nature Conservation, Nepal
61. Rebecca Klein, Cheetah Conservation Botswana, Botswana
62. Emmanuel Koro, Environmental journalist, South Africa
63. Paige Lee, IUCN SSC Pangolin Specialist Group, UK
64. Gabriela Lichtenstein, National Research Council (CONICET), Argentina
65. Mohsin Lee Likoniwalla, Animal Care Centre, Nairobi, Kenya
66. Xin Liu, China Northeast Forestry University, China
67. Ewan Macdonald, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, UK
68. Ian Macdonald, University of Cape Town, South Africa
69. Duncan MacFadyen, Oppenheimer Generations, South Africa
70. Masego Madzawmuse, IUCN CEESP and Southern Africa Trust, South Africa
71. Prince Dipati Maenetja, Balepye Community, South Africa
72. Reuben Malema, BE Products (Pty) Ltd, South Africa
73. Stefan Michel, IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi), Germany
74. EJ Milner-Gulland, University of Oxford, UK
75. Nick Mitchell, Zoological Society of London, UK
76. Axel Moehrenschlager, Centre for Conservation Research, Calgary Zoological Society,
Canada
77. Vik Mohan, Blue Ventures, UK
78. Tom Moorhouse, University of Oxford, UK
79. Paola Mosig Reidl, CONABIO, Mexico
80. Victor K. Muposhi, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Zimbabwe
81. Aibat Muzbay, Kazakhstan Wildlife Foundation, Kazakhstan
82. Naveen Namboothri, Dakshin Foundation, India
83. Eric Djomo Nana, Agricultural Research Institute for Development (IRAD), Cameroon
84. Robert Nasi, CIFOR, Indonesia
9
85. Daniel Natusch, EPIC Biodiversity, Australia and France
86. Helen Newing, ICCS, University of Oxford, UK
87. Germain Ngandjui, Cameroon Canada Biodiversity Conservation Association, Cameroon
88. Andrew Norton, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), UK
89. Christine Nyangweso, Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya
90. Mike O'Brien, Fur Institute of Canada, Canada
91. Alegria Olmedo, University of Oxford, UK
92. Meera Anna Oommen, Dakshin Foundation, India
93. Josep Oriol, Okavango Capital, Kenya
94. Norman Owen-Smith, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
95. Elisa Panjang, University of Cardiff, UK
96. Despina Symons Pirovolidou, European Bureau for Conservation and Development
(EBCD), Belgium
97. Gail Potgieter, Felines Communication and Conservation Consultants, Namibia
98. Madhu Ramnath, NTFP Exchange Programme India, India
99. David Roberts, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, UK
100. Tim Roberts , University of Newcastle , UK
101. Dilys Roe, IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group and International
Institute for Environment and Development, UK
102. Ramón Peréz Gil Salcido, FAUNUM, Mexico
103. Lilian Sales, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil
104. Chris Sandbrook, University of Cambridge, UK
105. Ed Sayer, North Luangwa Conservation Programme, Zambia
106. Charlotte Searle, WildCRU, Universty of Oxford, UK
107. Catherine E. Semcer, Property and Environment Research Center, USA
108. Orynbassar Shaimukhanbetov, Kazakhstan Wildlife Foundation, Kazakhstan
109. Kartik Shanker, Indian Institute of Science and Dakshin Foundation, India
110. Pasang Dolma Sherpa, Center for Indigenous Peoples' Research and Development
(CIPRED), Nepal
111. Janusz Sielicki, Falcon Society, Poland
112. Keith Somerville, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, UK
113. Anna Spenceley, IUCN WCPA Tourism and Protected Areas Specialist Group, UK
114. Oliver Springate-Baginski, School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, UK
115. Aarthi Sridhar, Dakshin Foundation, India
116. Don Stacey, Masebe Ranch, Zambia
117. Mark Stanley-Price, WildCRU, University of Oxford, UK
118. Paolo Strampelli, WildCRU, University of Oxford, UK
119.Cedric Thibaut Kamogne Tagne, Fondation Camerounaise de la terre Vivante (FCTV),
Cameroon
120. Simo Talla, University of Yaoundé, Cameroon
121. Francis Nchembi Tarla, Central African Bushmeat Action Group (CABAG), Cameroon
10
122. Taye Teferi , IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi),
International
123. Scott Trageser, The Biodiversity Group, USA
124. Piotr Tryjanowski, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poland
125. Michael ’t Sas-Rolfes, University of Oxford, UK
126. Dino Tumazos, COLCOM, Zimbabwe
127. Andrew van Heerden , The Conservation Imperative, South Africa
128. Nathalie VanVliet, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), France
129. Diogo Veríssimo, ICCS, University of Oxford, UK
130. Karl Vernes, University of New England, Australia
131. Frederick J Verreynne, Botswana Wildlife Producers Association, Botswana
132. Jako Volschenk, University of Stellenbosch Business School, South Africa
133. Francis Vorhies, African Leadership University, Rwanda
134. Gretchen Walters, Institute of Geography and Sustainability, University of Lausanne,
Switzerland
135. Dominic Whitmee, The Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association (OATA), UK
136. Matthew Wijers, WildCRU, University of Oxford, UK
137. Jane Wiltshire, Fellow of the African Wildlife Economics Institute of the University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa
138. James Wood, University of Cambridge, UK
139. Shibao Wu, South China Normal University, China
140. Mary Wykstra, Action for Cheetahs in Kenya, Kenya
Annexe A
1. Pandemic risk reduction measures must not exacerbate poverty and inequality
Since its inception, the WHO has defined health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and
social well-being’. Health is inextricably linked to nature, which underpins our physical and
mental wellbeing, and to poverty. The COVID-19 pandemic is far more than an immediate health
crisis: it is also unleashing unprecedented economic and social chaos. It is currently estimated to
be costing the global economy US$1 trillion in 2020 alone6
, with the International Labour
Organisation predicting cutbacks equivalent to nearly 200 million full-time workers in just three
months7
. Marginalised and vulnerable communities are likely to bear the brunt of these impacts,
with UNDP warning that nearly half the jobs in Africa could be lost8
. Worldwide, nearly half a
billion more people could be pushed into poverty9
, with the crisis disproportionately affecting
6 www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-covid-19-cost-economy-2020-un-trade-economics-pandemic/
7 https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1061322
8 https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/covid-19-could-cost-millions-of-jobs-in-africa/
9 https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/dignity-not-destitution
11
women, leading to wide-ranging social impacts including human rights abuses10
,
11
. Over half the
global population could be living in poverty after the pandemic, with particularly severe impacts
in sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East8
.
As the COVID-19 crisis will deepen poverty and damage health, potentially for generations, it is
unconscionable that measures aimed at preventing future pandemics should compound this by
further disadvantaging the world’s most vulnerable people, for instance through indiscriminate
bans on food markets, or unnecessary restrictions on wildlife trade. Millions of poorer
households, especially in rural areas, are particularly dependent upon using wild resources for
livelihoods and as insurance against economic shocks, whilst in urban areas millions more rely
upon affordable produce from wet markets for food security. Over a billion people worldwide,
including Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), rely on using and trading wildlife, by
selling and consuming wild meat, fish, insects and plants, extracting timber and forest products,
and many other activities. Many of these activities are legal, regulated and essential for
livelihoods, and pose no significant threat to human health or biodiversity - indeed, when well
regulated, wildlife trade can actually be beneficial for conservation. Indiscriminate restrictions
risk unnecessarily exacerbating poverty and inequality without commensurate benefits.
2. Wildlife trade must be addressed in a targeted, tailored and effective way
Wildlife trade, particularly in ‘wet markets’, has become a central part of the discourse around
COVID-19, and it has been suggested that banning wet markets, and banning or severely
restricting wildlife trade and consumption, could reduce future pandemic risks12. However, these
are complex topics. Wet markets underpin the informal food systems on which millions of urban
and rural people depend. They sell a range of fresh produce: fruit and vegetables, fish, livestock
and, sometimes, wildlife. Wildlife trade and consumption encompasses a wide variety of species,
both common and rare, and a vast array of uses including food, medicines, clothing, textiles, pets
and ornaments. Its drivers and dynamics are complex and varied. Even if wildlife trade bans were
just focused on food, it is important to note that zoonotic diseases also emerge from domestic
species. Focusing on Asian markets also ignores the fact that billions of people, in both the Global
North and South, consume wild meat from both common and ‘exotic’ species. Furthermore,
current proposals to ban all wildlife trade undermine both the spirit and efficacy of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which seeks to regulate trade
for the benefit of species conservation and enable trade that is legal, sustainable, and supportive
of conservation and human livelihoods. It would be more productive for the WHO, UNEP and
other stakeholders to work with CITES to align human health considerations with the objectives
of the Convention.
Suggestions that pandemics could be avoided by imposing a global ban on wildlife markets or
indiscriminately restricting wildlife trade are simplistic and risk enormous unintended
10 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/world/coronavirus-domestic-violence.html
11 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30526-2/fulltext
12 https://www.hsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID19-Open-Cover-Letter-for-White-Paper.pdf
12
consequences, including criminalising and further impoverishing countless people. Externallyimposed bans can drive trade underground and enmesh it with other organised criminal activity,
as occurred after the 2013-2016 Ebola outbreak13
. In that situation, regulations would become
harder to enforce, with lower standards of hygiene and animal welfare, and higher likelihood of
zoonotic disease outbreak. Furthermore, demand may remain if a legal supply is suddenly
removed (especially if captive breeding is also banned, as some recommend9
), risking a rise in
black market prices and increased incentives for poaching. This could accelerate the exploitation
and extinction of species in the wild. The risks associated with indiscriminate trade restrictions
highlight the need for targeted regulation and enforcement tailored to each specific situation, at
the appropriate level. This will increase the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes for
conservation, health and animal welfare, while reducing unintended consequences for people
and wildlife.
3. Holistic, far-sighted solutions are required to improve human and planetary health
This pandemic is a wake-up call with regard to our destructive relationship with nature. Wildlife
trade is only one of many factors that must be addressed to reduce zoonotic disease outbreaks,
secure biodiversity and improve human and planetary health. Habitat destruction and industrial
agriculture play key roles in increasing zoonotic disease transmission from wildlife to humans14
,
as people and their livestock come into ever closer proximity to wild species and pathogens. In
addition to catastrophic ecological impacts, the destruction of nature, in conjunction with climate
change, has long-term, devastating impacts on human physical and mental health.
The role of domestic species in zoonotic outbreaks such as pandemic influenza must also be
considered. Disease risks and welfare in farmed-animal supply chains should also be examined
robustly, with risk reduction strategies targeted at the highest-risk species, whether domestic or
wild. More widely, holistic approaches should be developed which look beyond pandemics, such
as limiting antibiotic use in livestock to reduce risks of antibiotic resistance, which poses a major
danger to human health. Business as usual cannot continue, and the WHO and UNEP are well
positioned to encourage governments and other agencies to fully recognise the interconnected
nature of planetary and human health. There is a need for a ‘One Health’15 coordinated approach
both across the UN, including the WHO, UNEP, UNDP and the FAO, and beyond with other
relevant organisations including the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the World
Trade Organisation (WTO). This synergistic approach would help develop and deliver a better,
more equitable future for humans and the ecosystems which underpin our society.
Summary
The response to COVID-19 has demonstrated that transformational action is possible if
governments and citizens are convinced that the risks of inaction outweigh the costs. We urgently
need similar transformational action to safeguard nature, delivering critical long-term benefits
13 https://newrepublic.com/article/156359/better-way-stop-coronaviruses
14 https://ensia.com/features/covid-19-coronavirus-biodiversity-planetary-health-zoonoses/
15 https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/one-health
13
for both human and planetary health as part of our response to COVID-19. Robust, long-lasting
measures must be taken to safeguard and adequately fund the protection of nature and invest
in science- and rights-based conservation and restoration. Devastating as the COVID-19
pandemic is, recovery from this crisis provides an unparalleled moment to create a better and
more sustainable future. We must change our relationship with nature and develop appropriate
strategies to equitably and sustainably manage the biodiversity upon which so many livelihoods
depend. Changes must be inclusive, well-considered and socially and economically just, and every
care must be taken not to exacerbate poverty and amplify existing inequalities.
The sustainable and inclusive management of nature is recognised throughout the UN as a key
element to achieving poverty reduction objectives and meeting the Sustainable Development
Goals. Indiscriminate restrictions on wildlife trade will devastate livelihoods, cause major harm
to human health and well-being and undermine human rights, without significant benefits for
biodiversity or health. Strategic, equitable, coordinated and holistic approaches are more likely
to reduce pandemic risks, achieve a better future for both human and planetary health, and
should be a core component of future WHO/UNEP recommendations. |