AS we relentlessly encroach on nature and degrade ecosystems, we endanger the health of all humanity, a warning underlined by the Covid-19 pandemic in the most dramatic imaginable fashion.
Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, last week noted that 75 per cent of all emerging infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic — originating from animals, whether domesticated or from the wild.
A new study in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B found that the spillover risk was highest from threatened and endangered wild animals whose populations had declined largely due to hunting, the wildlife trade and loss of habitat.
“Spillover of viruses from animals is a direct result of our actions involving wildlife and their habitat,” said lead author Christine Kreuder Johnson of the University of California.
“The consequence is they’re sharing their viruses with us. These actions simultaneously threaten species survival and increase the risk of spillover. In an unfortunate convergence of many factors, this brings about the kind of mess we’re in now.”
The link between ecosystems and human health has been well documented repeatedly — in landmark reports from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 15 years ago to last year’s IPBES Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services — both comprehensive, United Nations-endorsed reports involving thousands of experts worldwide.
In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment stressed an upturn in the emergence or re-emergence of infectious diseases due largely to rising human encroachment on natural environments, reductions in biodiversity (including natural predators of organisms that transmit disease), livestock and poultry production methods, and trading in wildlife.
The 2019 IPBES Global Assessment likewise warned of emerging infectious diseases in wildlife, domestic animals, plants or people, exacerbated by human activities such as land clearing and habitat fragmentation.
Both reports were well publicised, their messages repeated in countless forms, the scientific evidence there for all to see.
Sadly, it seems, only a calamitous event such as the current pandemic provides the jolt needed by many of us to take notice.
Just witness a sampling of the headlines last week: “Want to Stop the Next Pandemic? Start Protecting Wildlife Habitats” (Bloomberg News); “Deforestation isn’t just an environmental problem. It’s a public health crisis” (ABC News, United States); “Coronavirus has exposed our arrogant relationship with nature” (Financial Times, United Kingdom); and, “Infectious diseases from animals likely to cause further pandemics” (The Medical News, Australia).
Surely there’s a better way — rather than react and cure; it’s time to anticipate and prevent more effectively.
At the initiative of Sir Peter Gluckman, former science adviser to the prime minister of New Zealand, the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) was founded in 2014 to fill an important gap — to promote and build the capacity for policymaking informed by scientific evidence. INGSA develops competent people and institutions operating at every level, from local to international — an association of thought leaders with know-how to enhance scientific evidence-based policymaking.
The inevitability of a pandemic like Covid-19 had been predicted for many years. Yet the level of preparation was limited by a failure to appreciate the significance of such warnings.
Gluckman asks why the science evidence, policy nexus failed. Was it overconfidence within policy communities because previous outbreaks like SARS and Ebola were effectively contained?
Was it because influenza was perceived as a minor disease usually well dealt with by vaccination (even though flu viruses regularly kill 290,000 to 650,000 people per year, especially the elderly and infirm, according to the World Health Organisation)?
Did scientists forecasting an uncertain but potentially devastating disease spread seem alarmist?
The expense required to prepare for this pandemic might have had little public support in the absence of certainty of impact, making such long-term planning a low priority relative to short-term demands. But the missed investment needed to be well prepared in advance seems pittance today compared with the expense and consequences of ramping up belatedly to deal with Covid-19.
Even now, there remains an array of denial and misinformation that bends the narrative to support short-term political and economic interests.
There is critical learning here for every country.
As pointed out by Gluckman, the Covid-19 crisis represents the biggest science advice and science diplomacy challenge the world has faced together in many decades. It offers the most appropriate time ever for the scientific community to forge a more solid ongoing link with policymakers, government officials and leaders of industry and civil society.
With the devastating effects of climate change on the horizon, we had better start to get it right, and right away.
The writer is a senior fellow of the Academy of Sciences Malaysia and a founding member of the International Network for Government Science Advice