Republish

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

The COVID-19 wild meat ban is unfair to forest dwellers who depend on it for protein. 

As efforts to curb the COVID-19 pandemic accelerate around the world, wildlife conservationists have welcomed a move by the Chinese government to outlaw the hunting and consumption of all terrestrial wild animals.
 
Underlying this strategy is a credible theory that the virus leapt from an animal species — most likely a pangolin or bat — to humans in a market in Wuhan, China. Precisely how this occurred is still a matter of debate, but so far, the virus has infected over 720,000 and killed more than 34,000 people as of 30 March.

“The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), which has been working with our partners on understanding the implications of the interactions between wild animals, humans and forested landscapes for many years, believes that in areas where there is no alternative source of protein the consumption of wild meat should be allowed to continue and be banned in locations where alternative sources of protein exist.”

John Fa and Robert Nasi, CIFOR

And yet, the new ban – if it is replicated by other countries – overlooks the reality that millions of people, often indigenous peoples and members of rural communities, rely on wild meat and fish as their sole source of dietary protein, fat and micronutrients.

Indonesia bushmeat
A man holds up bushmeat in Papua. Image credit: Agus Andrianto/CIFORCC-BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Based on our research, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), which has been working with our partners on understanding the implications of the interactions between wild animals, humans and forested landscapes for many years, believes that in areas where there is no alternative source of protein the consumption of wild meat should be allowed to continue and be banned in locations where alternative sources of protein exist.
 

Making the leap

 Most of our findings — published in peer-reviewed journals — demonstrate that the root of the problem is deforestation and landscape degradation, which has led to systemic environmental alterations, increasing the chances of diseases jumping from animals to humans.  
 
For example, in recent research results published in Mammal Review, we suggested that when bats in the rainforests of West and Central Africa are unsettled by human activities leading to deforestation, their habitats expand, increasing their contact with people and influencing the spread of the deadly Ebola disease. Forested areas are often cleared to plant orchards. Agricultural activities increase the number of people moving to areas where there is a greater food supply for bats.
 
Research we published in Nature suggests that the probability of an Ebola outbreak increases in sites linked to recent deforestation events, and that forest conservation and restoration could lower the likelihood of future outbreaks.
 
The reality is that more than six out of every ten known infectious diseases in people are zoonotic, and that three of every four new or emerging infectious diseases in people are zoonotic, according to the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Diseases that have made the jump from animals to humans (zoonoses) include highly virulent HIV/AIDS, MERS, bird flu and SARS.

COVID-19 animal to human transmission

Animal-to-human transmission of the 2019 coronavirus. Image credit: ScienceDirect.
 
Wet markets in cities and urban areas, wildlife trafficking and trade should be stopped. But instead of demonising bats, primates, pangolins and other mammals we must keep in mind that circumstances in urban settings are very different than those for subsistence hunters living in forested areas.
 
Rural and wild meat must be available for the people who rely on it and have no alternative, but it should not be consumed in cities where people generally have other sources of protein available to them. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we were involved in an extensive research project into the uses of wild meat in cities, consumed primarily by people who consider it an exotic food item or a luxury. We are continuing our studies through the Sustainable Wildlife Management Programme with support from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations..
 

Biodiversity Protection

In 2015, we wrote in Conservation Biology that blame must not be placed on mammals so that acts-of-revenge land clearance and habitat destruction are not enacted as large areas of African bush were once cleared to prevent the spread of sleeping sickness.
 
We argued that Ebola should not be used as a Trojan horse to achieve wildlife conservation ends both because some of these measures are of questionable efficacy and may backfire, and because doing so raises unfortunate associations with the long history of an outdated discourse of conservation in Africa that favoured wildlife over people.
 


The situation is made even more complex by incursions — often by settlers involved in natural resource extraction or agriculture — which have fractured historic tenure rights, dismantling or putting livelihoods, wildlife and ecosystems at risk as we explained in a paper published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment earlier this year.
 
We need to change our views on wild meat consumption. Current arguments by conservationists largely support a blanket ban on wild meat consumption worldwide. But this overlooks the environmental disequilibrium and havoc resulting from government policies that permit soybean production in Brazil, deforestation of the Amazon rainforest and the disruption caused by oil palm plantations in Indonesia. There is much to be learned about the intertwined destinies of humans and wildlife. The study of Ebola, Marburg, Lassa fevers and other zoonoses that cross over from animal reservoirs to humans must be put in context that precedes the human–human contagion phase.
 
We must investigate interactions between humans and infected wildlife through thorough studies of landscape change and use by humans and animals and of their interactions from pre-colonial times to the present.
 
John Fa is a senior associate scientist at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), a professor of Biodiversity and Human Development at Britain’s Manchester Metropolitan University, and a visiting professor at Spain’s University of Malaga. Robert Nasi is director of CIFOR. They jointly coordinate the CIFOR Bushmeat Research Initiative.
 
This piece was produced by SciDev.Net’s Asia & Pacific desk.


References

Pooley, S., Fa, J. E., & Nasi, R. No conservation silver lining to Ebola. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology29(3), 965–967 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12454

Human deforestation activities link bats to ebola outbreaks
Canadian caribou hunting ban highlights challenges of wildlife management
Management of intact forestlands by Indigenous Peoples key to protecting climate