PANIC

In the relatively recent past we have witnessed a succession of deadly health scares, including HIV/AIDS, bird flu and haemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola. These outbreaks have ranged from localized to regional and multiregional. They have also either ravaged mostly poor regions or poor and relatively powerless people, often in large numbers. Covid-19, a zoonotic beta coronavirus,^[2] has had a completely different approach: it has attacked from the head, with the most prosperous and economically/politically powerful countries among the earliest theatres of dislocation. The frantic response and the overturning of age-old caution in approving medicines and vaccines reflect the threat Covid-19 poses to the centres of human power.

It is almost certain that Covid-19’s further progression will continue to be accompanied by international attention to its causes and solutions of unprecedented scale, even though it has infected only about 1.5 percent of the global population and killed very few of its victims. Despite Covid-19’s relatively modest morbidity and mortality signals, rich countries – followed by poor ones – rushed into lockdowns that wrecked their economies. For poor countries, the economic meltdown will be particularly difficult to exit from. Moreover, already at this early stage, even rich societies with more individualistic mindsets and expectations of personal freedom have, for instance, accepted masking; endured the drastic curtailment of their economic and social activities and physical movements; refrained from habits of endearment such as hugs and cheek pecking; and have been prevented from engaging in “social-bonding” practices such as eating out in groups and sending children to school.

ACCELERATING ZOONOTIC THREATS 

Scientists warn that pandemics are emerging with growing frequency: Haskell[i] reports that, historically, new or repeat global pandemics occur every 10–20 years but that the intervening periods are shortening. Zabronsky[ii] quotes Christian Walzer (of the Wildlife Conservation Society) as saying that: “There are about 50 outbreaks per decade and that rate is increasing. There have been 11 outbreaks of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1976, eight of those have occurred in the last 13 years, and in the past two years, four of them have occurred.” FAO’s World Livestock 2013: Changing Disease Landscapes[iii]observes that 70 percent of the new human diseases that have emerged over recent decades are of animal origin, due, in part, to the human quest for more animal protein. This led Zabronsky to pose the question: “Should we minimize the risk of zoonotic disease transmission by reducing our reliance on animal proteins?”

EMERGING CONVENTIONAL WISDOM: AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION AND FOREST LOSS ARE KEY CULPRITS

During its short existence, Covid-19 has resurrected and given birth to a number of theories and emerging conventional wisdoms about the origins and main transmittal modalities of zoonotic diseases. As a lay person, I fear that we will succumb to the temptation of applying the recent hectic pace for approving vaccines to the creation of conventional wisdom: we should take some time to observe and reflect as we do for every other important phenomenon. The literature is too rich to cite a significant portion of it, and the analysis here draws on the references provided in the endnotes. Below, I discuss four key beliefs related to forests and agriculture that commentators have mostly directed at developing countries, and I counsel against knee-jerk reactions that might cause more harm than good.

Belief 1: That wildlife (whose main home is forests and woodlands) is the main source of zoonotic diseases leading to pandemics. In essence, several analyses report that around 70 percent or more of all emerging infectious diseases and almost all recent pandemics are zoonotic; that the new zoonotic pathogens originate primarily in wildlife reservoirs (to add to older ones like foot and mouth disease, avian flu, swine fever and exotic Newcastle disease); and that, as a general thesis, increased interactions between humans and animals were the root cause of the recent outbreaks of SARS in 2002, avian flu in 2004, Ebola in 2014 and Covid-19 in 2019. FAO reports that wildlife meat accounts for at least 20 percent of animal protein in rural diets in at least 62 countries worldwide.[iv] It is significant that the “recent WHO mission to China to investigate the origins of the [Covid-19] pandemic … [pointed] at an animal origin, probably a bat.”[v]

A question needs to be raised as to why the danger of livestock is placed so low, despite mass media attention to high infection rates in slaughterhouses and on mink farms – perhaps more frequent than reports of infections among hunters, furriers or other worker categories that handle wildlife or wildlife carcasses. There is even greater silence regarding the possible danger from domestic pets.

Belief 2: That agricultural expansion into wild areas is bringing wildlife and domesticated livestock [and humankind?] into greater contact, so increasing the probability of cross-infection. Essentially, several sources,  including WHO/FAO/OIE,[vi] report that nearly half of the 70 percent of zoonoses among all emerging infectious diseases are directly linked to global environmental degradation caused primarily by agricultural expansion and deforestation. Anthropogenic drivers include the increased risk posed by agricultural expansion and intensification; increased demand for animal protein; global travel; trade in domestic or exotic animals; urbanization; and habitat destruction. We humans are said to be more in contact with animals than ever before and cause more and more degradation by our search for more and cheaper food, thereby putting ourselves and our animals into greater contact with wildlife-borne diseases. According to Zabronsky, the Centre for International Forestry Research biogeographic models point to deforestation as a strong driver of Ebola transmission and to a strong correlation between human disturbance, deforestation, and the spread of zoonoses.[vii]

Van Langevelde et al.[viii] emphasize not just forests but also biodiversity, believing that its conservation offers additional habitats for species and reduces contact among wildlife, livestock and humans – hence reducing the risk of zoonotic disease. They also highlight two elements that others do not stress enough: (a) that domestic animals, live animal markets, wildlife hunting and intensive wildlife farming[3] are the most important animal–human interfaces for the spillover of emerging zoonoses to people; and (b) that, as conveyors and reservoirs, non-human primates are important in Africa and Asia, with bats[4] particularly dangerous because they can travel long distances and tend to keep in close contact with their peers.

Greater clarity is needed, however. Apart from Van Langevelde et al., the studies listed in the endnotes generally mention increased contact between wildlife and livestock and stop there. Danger to humans only comes if the change in the nature of contacts also means greater exposure of humans. The conclusion must be that livestock is the delivery mechanism. To better safeguard humanity from forthcoming pandemics, it would help to be more explicit as to which livestock species are the most “prolific” conveyors. The focus of responses changes significantly if the risk is greater from direct contact between humans and wildlife (or wildlife meat) or largely through livestock. By focusing on direct contact with wildlife, much attention and resources could be misdirected towards avoiding wildlife meat when an even more frequent avenue of transmission –  livestock and livestock products – is (through silence) granted an apparent free pass.

Two other questions arise: (a) as observed by Maetz[ix] but converted into a query: even if deforestation may have contributed to increasing the absolute number of people in contact with forests, why the big impact, since that group probably constitutes a relatively smaller minority compared to the total world population than ever in history?; and (b) although agriculture is expanding, human urbanization is also at an all-time high: a lay person would thus believe that the separation between people and wildlife is increasing rather than diminishing. What is the reality, and what does research reveal about the net situation when adequate account is taken of both farm expansion and urbanization?

Belief 3: Climate change may be improving conditions for the survival of disease agents and their vectors. This assertion is less frequent than those referring to the roles of wild meat and deforestation, but it is still expressed often enough. Indeed, Zabronsky quotes an International Food Policy Research Institute team (Robertson et al.), which used their IMPACT model to show that “…climate change reduces forest cover more than incursion by cropland” – the climate-change effect is via forest loss.

We need fuller quantitative backup in both temperate and tropical belts for the assertion that climate change also apparently, according to FAO, affects survival rate of disease agents, the habitats of hosts, migration patterns and disease transmission dynamics.

Belief 4: Human behaviour and lifestyles are among the drivers for spread. As one understands it in layman’s language, the existence, abundance and proximity of human contact with the zoonotic pathogens is only the “supply” side of the equation. Such supply would not cause much harm if human lifestyles/behaviour did not facilitate people getting infected – that is, did not offer the “demand” side.

It emerges that humankind is apparently complicit in its own increasing vulnerability to infection in two main ways: (a) the adoption of “an increasingly protein-rich diet based on livestock and fishery products…”. “Wild meat accounts for at least 20 percent of animal protein in rural diets in at least 62 countries worldwide”[x] (FAO 2); and (b) increased contacts through travel: as Maetz[xi] reports, “…until recently, people in contact with wildlife…were living in isolated areas and were not so mobile…[and so]…not very liable to contaminate other humans. Today, however …the number of air passengers escalated from 1.2 billion per annum in the 90s to almost 4.5 billion per year before the outbreak of COVID-19…”. In addition, Maetz conveys World Trade Organization data showing that trade increased from US$3.5 trillion to US$19.0 trillion between 1990 and 2018. If the conveyance of Covid-19 viruses in internationally traded cold-stored meat and fish products is scientifically possible – as stated in media reports – then the trade dimension could also be significant.

APPROACH TO SOLUTIONS AND POSSIBLE PITFALLS 

An important and unchallengeable conventional wisdom concerns any future approach to addressing disease outbreaks. As advocated by FAO,[xii] the Global Landscapes Forum[xiii] and Zabronsky,[xiv] there must be a “One Health” approach that considers the interplay between environmental factors and animal and human health and which brings together to work, in a holistic coalition, human health professionals, veterinary specialists, sociologists, economists and ecologists. Complementing this would be “…global collaborations on a multisectoral basis with interdisciplinary partnerships for … effective planning and mitigation of zoonotic disease impacts…”, as called for by Haskell.[xv] A related recommendation, with which all must agree, is that top priority should be given to assembling evidence on the drivers of animal disease (wild or domesticated not specified) FAO. [xvi]

Areas of further enquiry

On other emerging conventional wisdoms, it seems necessary to inquire more profoundly into the following aspects:

• Confirming the significance of livestock and pets relative to wildlife as a source of human infections (whether direct or as conveyors).
• Identifying the main transmitters between animals and humans (beyond the frequently named bats).
• Understanding reservoir functions within humankind and its closest animals – pets and livestock.
• Establishing whether ongoing rapid urbanization and concentrated “industrial” agriculture neutralize the impacts of habitat destruction, which is said to be bringing people closer to wild animals.

Literature accessed for the purposes of this article does not include the results of serious modelling to tease out the net result when the opposing impacts of habitat recession or fragmentation versus urbanization are at play. Where disease has not already found a home in human populations, modelling may also clarify whether the great propensity to travel (both on land and by air) exposes people to potential infection as much as feared, or if most travellers end up in quite animal-deficient destinations. Serious tracing and perhaps also modelling may be needed to ascertain whether the pets and livestock that are so close to humans, and to whose germs humans may have become accustomed, are still not a conveyance that is predisposed to carry wildlife germs that can then weaponize themselves while transiting or in storage in the pets and livestock. This potential worry should be multiplied when it is realized (as observed by FAO) that “Intensive production at large scale involves the congregation of large numbers of genetically identical animals…”[xvii] – a disease in such identical animals would spread exponentially; if transmissible to people, the devastating impact can only be imagined. There is a case for an agency such as the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis to take a more prominent role in analysing these challenges.

Will all solutions be useful?

Some aspects of Covid-19 have been politicized, and the audience includes those who wish to have clear designation of “culprits” – specific countries; specific cultures and their food habits; specific groups of people historically dependent on wildlife hunting; meat eaters; and people dependent on informal wet markets which are believed/suspected of being more unsafe than more structured markets (presumably involving pre-sealed packaging of meat products). The unfortunate aspect about these types of concerns is that, even if confirmed, it may be impossible to act on the answers. For instance, how does one punish countries? How can one quickly transform a populace that is dependent on wildlife to livestock? Before we are sure that the threat is not greater from livestock and pets than from wildlife, should one really be contemplating banning wild meat on which so many poor and under-fed people depend? How does one abolish the eating of meat in general, especially in poor countries, where, for their entire lives, people have used little meat protein? How does one abolish culturally heavily embedded food habits? How does one replace wet markets accessible to masses of people with “pre-pack” models of meat sales?

Furthermore, the effects of some presumed “solutions” may be worse than the perceived problem. For example, regarding banning wild meat, Maetz suggests that, for the Congo Basin, “…replacing wild meat consumed in the Congo Basin with meat from livestock such as cattle would mean converting 25 million hectares of forest into pastureland…”.  In the end, humankind will need to be pragmatic; to invest heavily in research and development regarding pending key questions, including those mentioned above but realizing that, after about a year, even the voracious Covid-19 has infected less than two percent of the global population (with many surviving). It should be put into context relative to other health and economic challenges for poor countries, including lingering viral pandemics and major endemic diseases such as malaria. The fact that, unlike earlier zoonotic pandemics,Covid-19 has heavily attacked the wealthy countries is no reason to throw realism and pragmatism out of the window.

Moreover, despite the atmosphere of widespread fear and panic, conventional wisdoms should not be allowed to be born and set in stone before sober reflection and deeper research is conducted. We need to leave room for evidence-based science and common sense as Covid-19 progresses so that we are not locked into knee-jerk responses.

__________

[1]Malawi and South Africa-based policy adviser and analyst on food security, agriculture and forestry – emchipeta@gmail.com [2]Zoonotic diseases, or zoonoses, are diseases transmitted from animals to humans. [3]For example, deer, rodents, civets, mongooses, fur mammals such as minks, and ostriches. [4]Bats are suspected reservoirs of Ebola, Nipah, SARS and Covid-19 (Van Langevelde et al).

__________

[i] Haskell, Scott R.R. 2020: What’s the next zoonotic pandemic that will affect global food safety and security?.  May 19, 2020.

[ii] Zabronsky, Hope, 2020: Policy seminar: COVID-19, food systems, ecosystems, and the risk of zoonotic diseases. Event Post, August 24, 2020.

[iii] FAO, 2013: Surge in diseases of animal origin necessitates new approach to health – report. Focus on root causes and prevention needed. 16 December 2013.

[iv] FAO, 2020: Food Systems Transformation and the UN Food Systems Summit. Committee on Forestry – 25^th Session; 5-9 October 2020, FAO, Rome.

[v] Maetz, Materne, 2021: COVID-19: Is agriculture the main culprit?. 11 February 2021.

(vi) WHO, FAO and OIE 2004: Report of the WHO/FAO/OIE joint consultation on emerging zoonotic diseases – in collaboration with the Health Council of the Netherlands. 3-5 May 2004, Geneva, Switzerland

[vii] Zabronsky, Hope, 2020:Policy seminar: COVID-19, food systems, ecosystems, and the risk of zoonotic diseases. Event Post, August 24, 2020.

(viii) Van Langevelde, Frank, Hugo René Rivera Mendoza et al., 2020: The link between biodiversity loss and the increasing spread of zoonotic diseases.  European Parliament, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Document PE 658.217 – December 2020.

[ix] Maetz, Materne, 2021: COVID-19: Is agriculture the main culprit?. 11 February 2021.

[x] FAO, 2020: FAO evidence highlights urgency to scale up actions to transform food systems and halt deforestation. 03 August 2020.

[xi] Maetz, Materne, 2021: COVID-19: Is agriculture the main culprit?. 11 February 2021.

[xii] FAO, 2020:  Food Systems Transformation and the UN Food Systems Summit. Committee on Forestry – 25^th Session; 5-9 October 2020, FAO, Rome.

[xiii] Global Landscapes Forum, 2020: Outcome Statement. GLF Digital Conference 2020, June 2020.

[xiv] Zabronsky, Hope, 2020:Policy seminar: COVID-19, food systems, ecosystems, and the risk of zoonotic diseases. Event Post, August 24, 2020.

[xv] Haskell, Scott R.R. 2020: What’s the next zoonotic pandemic that will affect global food safety and security?.  May 19, 2020.

[xvi] FAO, 2020: Food Systems Transformation and the UN Food Systems Summit. Committee on Forestry – 25^th Session; 5-9 October 2020, FAO, Rome.

[xvii] FAO, 2020: FAO evidence highlights urgency to scale up actions to transform food systems and halt deforestation. 03 August 2020. Langevelde et al).