'We did it to ourselves': scientist says
intrusion into nature led to pandemic
Leading US biologist Thomas Lovejoy says to stop
future outbreaks we need more respect for natural world
Phoebe
Weston
@phoeb0
Published
onSat 25 Apr 2020 06.00 BST
The vast
illegal wildlife trade and humanity’s excessive intrusion into nature is to
blame for the coronavirus pandemic, according to a leading US scientist who
says “this is not nature’s revenge, we did it to ourselves”.
Scientists
are discovering two to four new viruses are created every year as a result of
human infringement on the natural world, and any one of those could turn into a
pandemic, according to Thomas Lovejoy, who coined the term “biological
diversity” in 1980 and is often referred to as the godfather of biodiversity.
“This
pandemic is the consequence of our persistent and excessive intrusion in nature
and the vast illegal wildlife trade, and in particular, the wildlife markets,
the wet markets, of south Asia and bush meat markets of Africa… It’s pretty
obvious, it was just a matter of time before something like this was going to
happen,” said Lovejoy, a senior fellow at the United Nations Foundation and
professor of environment science at George Mason University.
His
comments were made to mark the release of a report by the Center for American
Progress arguing that the US should step up efforts to combat the wildlife
trade to help confront pandemics.
Wet markets
are traditional markets selling live animals (farmed and wild) as well as fresh
fruit, vegetables and fish, often in unhygienic conditions. They are found all
over Africa and Asia, providing sustenance for hundreds of millions of people.
The wet market in Wuhan believed to be the source of Covid-19 contained a
number of wild animals, including foxes, rats, squirrels, wolf pups and
salamanders.
Lovejoy
said separating wild animals from farmed animals in markets would significantly
lower the risk of disease transmission. This is because there would be fewer
new species for viruses to latch on to. “[Domesticated animals] can acquire
these viruses, but if that’s all there was in the market, it would really lower
the probability of a leak from a wild animal to a domesticated animal.”
He told the
Guardian: “The name of the game is reducing certain amounts of activity so the
probability of that kind of leap becomes small enough that it’s
inconsequential. The big difficulty is that if you just shut them down – which
in many ways would be the ideal thing – they will be topped up with black
markets, and that’s even harder to deal with because it’s clandestine.”
The
pandemic will cost the global economy $1tn this year, according to the World
Economic Forum, with vulnerable communities impacted the most, and nearly half
of all jobs in Africa could be lost. “This is not nature’s revenge, we did it
to ourselves. The solution is to have a much more respectful approach to
nature, which includes dealing with climate change and all the rest,” Lovejoy
said.
His
comments echo those of a study published in the journal Proceedings of the
Royal Society B earlier this month that suggested the underlying cause of the
present pandemic was likely to be increased human contact with wildlife.
Experts are
divided about how to regulate the vast trade in animals, with many concerned
the poorest are most at risk from a crackdown. Urgent action on the wildlife
trade is clearly needed, said Dr Amy Dickman, a conservation biologist from the
University of Oxford, but she was “alarmed” by calls for indiscriminate bans on
the wildlife trade.
She is one
of more than 250 signatories of an open letter to the World Health Organization
and United Nations Environment Programme saying any transition must contribute
to – and not detract from – the livelihoods of the world’s most vulnerable
people, many of whom depend on wild resources for survival. Other signatories
include representatives from the African Wildlife Foundation, the Frankfurt
Zoological Society and IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature).
The letter
reads: “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, medicinal use and consumption of
wildlife. However, indiscriminate bans and restrictions risk being inequitable
and ineffective.”
Scientists
and NGOs are concerned that over-simplistic and indiscriminate restrictions
will exacerbate poverty and inequality, resulting in an increase in
criminality. This could accelerate the exploitation and extinction of species
in the wild, authors of the letter warn.
“People
often seem more willing to point the finger at markets far away, as bans there
will not affect their everyday lives – although they will often affect the
rights of extremely vulnerable people,” said Dickman.
There are
also concerns about the impacts of an outright ban on a number of indigenous
populations, such as tribes in Orinoquia and Amazonia, with representatives
describing it as an “attack” on their livelihoods.
Mama
Mouamfon, who is based in Cameroon and directs an NGO called Fondation
Camerounaise de la Terre Vivante (FCTV), said banning the trade would damage
livelihoods: “Bush meat is very important for people in the forest because it’s
one of the best ways to get animal protein. With this issue of poverty and
people living in remote areas, it’s not easy for them to look for good meat,”
he said.
“Sometimes
people take decisions because they are sitting in an office and are very far
from reality. If they knew our reality they would not take that [same]
decision.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário