Ban wildlife trade to stop spread of deadly virus

A medical worker in protective suit interacts with a patient inside an isolated ward at Jinyintan Hospital in Wuhan, the epicentre of the novel coronavirus outbreak, in Hubei province, China February 13, 2020. [Reuters]

In response to the deadly coronavirus outbreak, China has taken a commendable and courageous decision to impose a temporary nationwide ban on all wildlife trade.

There is no denying that the growing global trade in wildlife (whether it is legal or illegal) is linked to transmission of certain diseases.

Lack of proper conditions at a typical “wet market” where animals with weakened immunities are left to sit in their own waste, provide the perfect opportunity for pathogens, like viruses, to mutate and spread.

This, combined with close human contact can create a recipe for disaster. In modern times, the threat has grown to global proportions, as people capture wild animals from their natural habitats and trade them dead or alive to different parts of the world.

There are a complex range of factors that influence a country’s risk of transmitting diseases from wild animals.

For example, based on the number of animals traded, our recent review of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species database identified a number of countries that warrant attention.

In particular China, is the largest exporter of live mammals with 98,979 animals representing 58.7 per cent of all global trade listed on this international treaty between 2011 and 2016 alone.

A new deadly disease such as coronavirus can emerge from one single animal. With wildlife markets such as the one in Wuhan found all over the world, the potential for this to keep recurring is a very real threat.

So what should be done? Rather than simply treating wild animals as bags of disease and attempting to eradicate pathogens or cull the wild animals that harbour them, efforts to decrease contact between wild animals and people could prove to be the most practical and cost-effective approach.

In the long term we need to tackle the consumer demand for wildlife and their body parts. In the short-term, trade bans (like that now imposed by China) have also been proposed as a tool to help reduce the spread of the disease.

However, if they are to be fully effective these bans should be global and underpinned by efforts to reduce demand. 

Martha Oundo, Busia