02.06.2016 Views

Connecting Global Priorities Biodiversity and Human Health

1ZcgwtN

1ZcgwtN

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

is a natural phenomenon, the widespread of use<br />

of antimicrobials can create genetic selection<br />

pressures for resistant strains. Dispersion of<br />

antimicrobial drugs as well as genetic exchange<br />

through ecological processes may also present<br />

non-target environmental exposure in humans<br />

<strong>and</strong> wildlife (Allen et al. 2010).<br />

2.3.3 Wildlife trade <strong>and</strong> disease<br />

Trade in wildlife involves the geographic<br />

movement of hundreds of millions plants <strong>and</strong><br />

animals worldwide comprising an estimated<br />

economic value of over US$ 300 billion per annum<br />

(including both legal <strong>and</strong> illegal trade estimates)<br />

(Ahlenius 2008). This trade is driven by consumer<br />

dem<strong>and</strong> for a multitude of products ranging from<br />

traditional medicines, bushmeat, trophies, live<br />

exotic pets, <strong>and</strong> foods. Within each of these broad<br />

categories exists a wide range of specialty market<br />

value chains that vary greatly in their motivating<br />

economics, sociocultural origins, geographical<br />

source <strong>and</strong> destination, transportation type<br />

<strong>and</strong> route, trader <strong>and</strong> consumer profiles, species<br />

composition <strong>and</strong> condition, <strong>and</strong> local <strong>and</strong><br />

international legality.<br />

Trade in wildlife is illegal if it is contrary to the<br />

laws of the participating nations or the limitations<br />

on trade presented by the Convention on<br />

International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora<br />

<strong>and</strong> Fauna (CITES). Despite such protections, it<br />

is estimated that illegal wildlife trade results in<br />

a mean source population decline of 60–70% in<br />

targeted species (Karesh et al. 2012). This failure<br />

to protect vulnerable populations is a testament to<br />

the evasiveness of the wildlife trafficking industry<br />

from poacher to the black market, seemingly<br />

impossible to monitor, let alone control. Further,<br />

challenges in curbing illegal international wildlife<br />

trade described by Conrad (2012) include high<br />

dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> profit, cultural <strong>and</strong> societal traditions,<br />

ambiguity of property rights, negative economic<br />

incentives for bans, <strong>and</strong> inadequate enforcement.<br />

Of additional concern is the fact that only CITESlisted<br />

species garner much attempt at regulation<br />

at all, while the ecological impact of harvest <strong>and</strong><br />

international trade of billions of non-CITES-listed<br />

animals goes largely unassessed.<br />

The hefty economic value of the global trade in<br />

wildlife is rarely countered in the literature by<br />

its costs to governments <strong>and</strong> the public for the<br />

introduction of invasive species, as discussed<br />

further in the following section. Likewise, several<br />

significant zoonotic infectious diseases have<br />

emerged in part due to the substantial human–<br />

animal contact that occurs along the wildlife trade<br />

chain, from harvest to end point. These diseases<br />

have included SARS coronavirus (wet markets<br />

in China), HIV (primate bushmeat hunting),<br />

monkeypox virus (exotic pet trade), <strong>and</strong> H5N1 <strong>and</strong><br />

H7N9 avian influenza viruses (Karesh et al. 2005;<br />

Gilbert et al. 2014). The global trade in wildlife<br />

provides disease transmission mechanisms that<br />

not only result in human <strong>and</strong> animal health<br />

threats but also damages to international trade,<br />

agricultural livelihoods, <strong>and</strong> global food security.<br />

There is minimal overall health regulation of<br />

the wildlife trade in comparison to agricultural<br />

trade, <strong>and</strong> such work falls between regulatory<br />

authorities of national ministries (e.g. agricultural,<br />

environmental <strong>and</strong> public health) <strong>and</strong> international<br />

regulatory organizations. Wildlife trade is complex<br />

<strong>and</strong> multimodal <strong>and</strong> does not present equal<br />

risk to environmental, agricultural <strong>and</strong> human<br />

health. Thus the threat of disease emergence<br />

from the wildlife trade <strong>and</strong> the socioeconomic<br />

<strong>and</strong> behavioural factors that contribute to it<br />

cannot be defined with one overarching risk<br />

assessment. Rather, specific market value chain<br />

types require targeted evaluation <strong>and</strong> tailored<br />

intervention policies that would put measures<br />

in place to facilitate relatively benign commerce<br />

while establishing the necessary measures to<br />

minimize practices that are damaging to the global<br />

environment <strong>and</strong> health.<br />

2.3.4 Implications of biotic exchange<br />

(invasive alien species)<br />

The term invasive alien species (IAS) refers to a<br />

species, sub-species or other taxon of organism,<br />

introduced by human action outside its natural<br />

past or present distribution, <strong>and</strong> whose introduction,<br />

establishment <strong>and</strong> spread threatens biological<br />

diversity or ecosystem integrity. Introductions can<br />

occur either intentionally or accidentally, <strong>and</strong> the<br />

140 <strong>Connecting</strong> <strong>Global</strong> <strong>Priorities</strong>: <strong>Biodiversity</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Health</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!