Connecting Global Priorities Biodiversity and Human Health
1ZcgwtN
1ZcgwtN
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>