CITES and the Zoonotic Disease Content in International Wildlife Trade

Abstract

International trade in wildlife is one contributing factor to zoonotic disease risk. Using descriptive statistics, this paper shows that in the last decades, the volume and pattern of internationally traded wildlife has changed considerably and, with it, the zoonotic pathogens that are traded. In an econometric analysis, we give evidence that an international environmental trade agreement could be used to limit the spread of zoonotic pathogens and disease. More specifically, combining zoonotic disease data with wildlife trade data from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife and Fauna (CITES), we show that making trade requirements more stringent leads to a decrease in the number of animals traded and, incidentally, also the number of zoonotic diseases that are traded. Our results contribute to the discussion of policy measures that manage the spread of zoonotic diseases.

Metacoupled Tourism and Wildlife Translocations Affect Synergies and Trade-Offs among Sustainable Development Goals across Spillover Systems

“…For example, the panda loans favored multiple SDGs (9, 15, and 17) within Wolong and across spillover systems [6], while the associated carbon emissions may also lead to trade-offs with SDG 13 (climate change) [84]. Moreover, similar to the raccoon translocation program (Table 2), the wildlife trade has noticeably played a role in the emergence of zoonotic disease (SDG 3) across the world [43], such as monkeypox in the USA [88,89], Ebola in Africa, salmonellosis in the USA and Europe [90]. The most recent case is the novel coronavirus COVID-19, which was believed bat trade-related [44], and has spread on a global scale, and resulted in over 23 million people infected and more than 800,000 people died as of 23 August 2020 [45].…”

“…For instance, a total of 88,081 records of trade of live specimens for non-commercial purposes (e.g., educational, scientific, breeding, botanical gardens, and zoos) were reported between 1975 and 2017, and at least 49 countries and territories had more than 100 trade records (Figure 1). Moreover, wildlife trade has arguably contributed to zoonotic disease worldwide [43], such as the ongoing COVID-19 [44], which has infected over 23 million cases and resulted in more than 800,000 deaths as of 23 August 2020 [45]. Evaluating how those flows of people and wildlife may influence SDG synergies and trade-offs is urgently required, and can contribute to further understanding the drivers behind the synergies and trade-offs among SDG/targets across boundaries [6,[12][13][14][15][16].…”

Habitat loss and the risk of disease outbreak

“…For analytical convenience, we have focused here on habitat conversion and its effect on the likelihood of a zoonotic disease transmission and outbreak. Other human-wildlife interactions, such as hunting and capturing wildlife for trade and meat production, are not explicitly modelled even though they are important transmission channels ( Borsky et al., 2020 ; Espinosa et al., 2020 ). As Borsky et al.…”

Risky Business: Live Non-CITES Wildlife UK Imports and the Potential for Infectious Diseases

“…Despite its recognised role as a major transmission pathway for pathogenic organisms, the majority of regulatory oversight of the international wildlife trade (e.g., CITES) has no focus on preventing zoonotic disease introduction and no authority for biosecurity regulation [2,46]. Yet, research has shown that international trade agreements could be an effective way to manage zoonotic disease risk by limiting the amount of contact between humans and animals [47]. In lieu of establishing an additional international treaty specifically to address pathogen transmission, CITES is arguably well placed to adapt and incorporate disease spread via wildlife trade in its international remit [48].…”