‘End Pandemics’ Global Webinar

‘End Pandemics’ Global Webinar

Invited expert speaker

‘Bold actions needed to avert the next wildlife-related pandemic’

(Video available here)

John E. Scanlon AO

Special Envoy, African Parks

20 April 2020

-----

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute towards today’s discussion.

As you are all aware, a wet market in Wuhan, China may be the origin of the outbreak of COVID-19.

Wet markets not only exist in Asia, but in Africa and Latin America, and depending how they are defined, world-wide. Trade in wildlife, both legal and illegal, affects every country in one way or another.

Avoiding possible future wildlife-related pandemics involves challenging, global, interconnected, issues and a collective effort is needed to address them.

There are a number of actions that I believe could be taken to avert the next wildlife-related pandemic, which I outlined in a webinar hosted by ICCF (International Conservation Caucus Foundation) last week. In the time available today, I will highlight just a few.

We firstly need some definitions around what we mean by a wet market and wildlife trade, so we can focus our efforts on the areas of risk and avoid any unintended consequences.

Wet markets, wildlife trade and consumption that do pose a high risk to human health should be banned immediately as a precautionary measure. Experts in the relevant fields are best placed to determine what activities pose a risk to human health.

At present, decisions to ban high risk activities can only be taken at the national level, yet, they can affect us all, and to be effective, any current and future bans or closures of wet markets, and any further restrictions on wildlife trade and consumption, will need to be applied and enforced across all countries to stave off future pandemics.

There is, however, no international legal agreement that enables wildlife markets, trade or consumption to be banned on public health grounds.

International trade in wildlife is regulated through a convention known as CITES but trade is regulated to avoid overexploitation, based upon agreed biological and trade criteria. It does not take public health issues into account in its decision making. Andrew has told us the figures, and I’ll not repeat them.

We have known for some time now that serious wildlife crime is organised and transnational, is fuelled by corruption, and has a devastating impact on wildlife, local communities, national economies, security, public health and entire ecosystems, but this is now increasingly obvious.

With new national, and hopefully international, laws being enacted to ban high risk wet markets and the trade in and consumption of certain wildlife on public health grounds, the need for a coordinated global and national enforcement response is greater than ever.

If not, such markets and trade may simply move underground, which will exacerbate, rather than diminish, the health risks.

Remarkably, there is no global legal agreement on wildlife crime.

The reality is that the international regime for regulating wildlife trade, combating illegal trade and wildlife crime more generally, is inadequate.  

The current pandemic illustrates the point. COVID-19 is thought to have originated in horseshoe bats, with other wild animals, possibly pangolins, playing a role in transmission to humans. The horseshoe bat is not listed under CITES, and hence international trade is not regulated. Pangolins are listed under CITES and commercial trade is prohibited, yet, from 2016-2019, we saw a record number of pangolin scales seized and confiscated.

Profound changes are needed to the current legal framework if we are to have any hope of preventing the next wildlife-related pandemic. 

Firstly, we need to incorporate public health issues into the international framework for regulating wildlife trade. This could be achieved by amending CITES to include public health into its mandate, including to deal with domestic markets, commercial and non-commercial trade, and consumption, or by developing a new agreement, possibly under the WHO.

Secondly, we must treat wildlife crime as a serious crime and embed it in the international criminal law framework. We can do this by bringing wildlife crime under the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime through a new protocol, as has been done for other serious crimes such as human trafficking.

We need a legal agreement that obliges countries to criminalise importing any illegally sourced wildlife – such as we see in the US under the Lacey Act, and to oblige serious wildlife crimes to be criminalised, including those that carry a serious health risk.

To be as effective as possible, a scaled-up global and national enforcement effort will need to be complemented by many other actions, including:

 - well-targeted demand reduction campaigns.

- initiatives to provide alternative sources of protein and livelihoods to people severely affected by any bans.

- taking measures to better protect wildlife at its source, before it is taken or traded illegally, and to protect its habitat.

- tapping into new sources of funding, given the benefits of nature conservation extend well beyond wildlife to include health, security and development benefits.

Unilateral actions at the national level are welcome but are not enough. The implications of decisions and actions taken on high risk activities have global implications and must be brought into an open and transparent international process.

We must institutionalise the changes that are needed by embedding them into the international framework of laws, funding and programmes to ensure transparency and accountability, in taking, as well as implementing, critical decisions on high risk activities.

If we do not, then I fear we may soon find ourselves back in the same place as we are today.

Thank you, Steve, for the invitation to share these thoughts with you. 

-----

Full video available here.