4.      Delayed actions for nature

The year 2020 was initially perceived as a super year for the conservation of nature. In the months of May through to October, governments were to meet under the UN Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). A major output of the meeting would have been individual country targets in conserving biodiversity. The CBD announced the cancellation of the conference on 17^th March 2020. Such conferences are vital for conservation in Africa as countries identify conservation priorities and pledge support.

Recent evidence show that disease outbreaks are caused by climate change, habitat fragmentation, and biodiversity loss. The last two causes vindicate the importance of CBD conference.

Meetings cannot be held because they do not follow the social distancing principle. Similarly, it means that research and training in conservation has reduced. Although online platforms create opportunities for communication, some aspects of conservation communication are hard to achieve using the online means. Moreover, the infrastructure for effective online communication is lacking in many of Africa’s conservation areas.

5.      Increase in human-wildlife conflicts

Understandably, more people will look at alternatively economic activities following the pandemic. In Africa, the go-to alternative often involves natural resources. The safety net for most people is agriculture-whether crop production or livestock rearing. Such activities mean going into wildlife habitats.

Conflicts arise when wildlife kill livestock or raid crops. Conservation organizations near wildlife areas have some form for consolation to losses suffered by farmers. The problem is these conservation organizations are likely to lack the funds to compensate livestock killed or crops raided. Afterall, as we mentioned in the first point, most conservation efforts rely on ecotourism.

What should be done to save the situation?

Without a doubt, conservation in Africa needs support now more than ever. Species are in real risk of decimation if the situation is left uncontrolled. If anything, the protection of conservation areas should be intensified during the Coronavirus crises. As the virus disrupts the livelihood of people, they are likely to resort to exploiting the environment. The big question is the source of funding for conservation. For now, we think that the best solution is philanthropy and grants. People and funding organizations with the muscle should support the precarious conservation industry in Africa.

The problem is there is a lot of competition for funding. It will be tragic for Africa if governments and funders fail to address conservation needs.

However, the future of African conservation shouldn’t be philanthropy. As conserved areas provide a myriad of environmental goods and services, policies should favour models based on payment for ecosystem services (PES). For instance, carbon stored in the conserved areas of Africa need quantification and verification. Consequently, the credits could be sold in the voluntary markets. In the same way, policies should seek to monetize the environmental benefits of soil, air and water quality that arises because of conservation.

Parting shot

The novel coronavirus has slowed down human activities. As a result, it appears that the environment is breathing as wildlife is roaming freely and air is cleaner in most parts of the world. But we are in a marathon not a sprint. Coronavirus is likely to have negative impacts on the environment in the long-term. In Africa, particularly, the virus has reduced tourism income, which is a main source for funding conservation. When this pandemic is over, Africa should relook its conservation model as the current one is unsustainable.

4.      Nations will quickly meet their climate goals under the Paris Climate Accord.

Pundits claim that most nations will be able to meet their climate goals in accordance to the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, courtesy of the COVID 19 pandemic. Sectors such as production and transportation have come to a halt after the Coronavirus outbreak.

Consequently, the virus is driving nations towards reducing their emissions as envisaged in various global climate agreements.  Simply put, the virus outbreak has forced countries to lower their emissions hence prompting them to meet their international climate change obligations.

5.      An overall decline in global energy consumption rates

As millions of people are under strict lockdowns/curfews throughout the world, energy consumption rates have fallen sharply in decades. Energy consumption contributes significantly to the annual global gas emissions.

Although domestic energy consumption has soared significantly after the virus outbreak, industrial energy consumption rates have dropped dramatically at the same time. Industrial energy consumption is responsible for over a third of gas emissions in the world.

With the overall decline in global energy consumption, the world will benefit from reduced emissions, albeit temporarily. This reprieve has changed the global environment outlook for the better.

6.      An overall positive effect on the global climate

The measures taken by governments to combat the spread of COVID 19 have a short term positive effect on the global environment.  With vast populations barred from leaving home and travel bans imposed on major airlines, the environmental consequences brought about by such restrictive measures will give the world the much-needed respite.

A global reduction in gas emissions and pollution will contribute positively to the global climate. The pandemic has reversed some of the adverse effects caused by the infamous climate change. Even after the pandemic is over, governments will have a clear picture of the measures they ought to put in place to address the suppression of the climate.

Overly, the pandemic has led to a massive scale-down of industrial production and energy use. These two have, for decades, been the most significant contributors to climate change. Without them, the global climate will change for the better. But to maintain these benefits in the long-run, governments will have to take planned approaches to eliminate unnecessary energy consumption and industrial production after the pandemic.

7.      Closure of wet Markets

The wet market of Wuhan is the suspected source of Coronavirus. As such, authorities have stopped the operations of various wet markets following the devastating impacts of the COVID 19. For many years, conservationists have pushed for the closure of such markets. One of the most significant environmental benefit of the coronavirus is realizing stopping wet markets is possible.

Conclusion

The Coronavirus pandemic may have brought misery to the world. While the deadly virus has visibly brought everything on the planet to a halt, the environment seems to be the biggest beneficiary of the pandemic. Nonetheless, these environmental benefits that have been brought about by COVID 19 may only be temporary. As such, nations should make changes that will retain these benefits even after the end of the pandemic.

Why is wildlife trade occurring?

The entire globe faces the plight of wildlife trade.  Even in nations that have enacted strict poaching laws and punishments, the illegal trade continues to thrive. To address the problem of wildlife trade, we must understand why the business is booming.  Silvica identifies three pertinent issues among the various reasons why wildlife trade is occurring. 

1. Availability of a ready marketplace

The demand for wild animals and their parts has frustrated the efforts taken to curb illegal wildlife trade globally. For instance, the Asian continent has the biggest marketplace for wildlife. From skins, ivory, snake skins, animal claws, shells to horns, the wildlife market in Asia is so diverse.

International markets are often the destination for illegal wildlife trade. The wildlife and their parts may not be in high demand in their place of origin. Instead, there are highly on-demand in international markets. In many cases, people at the source experience widespread poverty that wildlife trade is a viable economic activity. Unless governments take proactive action to eliminate the existing wildlife marketplaces, wildlife trade will continue thriving. Wildlife stakeholders must ensure that custodians of wildlife get a competitive value for keeping wildlife.  

2. Absence of adequate laws to combat wildlife trade

In places where wildlife trade is rampant, there aren’t appropriate laws to curb illegal wildlife trading. Even if the law is present, the implementation may be weak. As such, orchestrators of this trade eventually get away with the vice. Some nations hadn’t given priority to wildlife trading until recently. Moreover, the punishment for illegal wildlife trading is too lenient in comparison to the crime committed by the masterminds of illegal wildlife trading.

3. Big money on offer

Illegal wildlife trading fetches enormous returns in the international markets. These returns encourage poachers to conduct this trade in pursuit of wealth. The greed for money has continuously been fueling the poaching industry for years.  In 2014, for instance, the cost of a rhino horn was about US$ 70,000 per kilogram. As long as big money is on offer, wildlife trading will continue flourishing.

The issues with wildlife trade

Wildlife trade has been identified as a significant threat to wildlife today. Illegal wildlife trading has several implications not just on wildlife populations, but also on the environment as well. We have identified five major issues that arise from the trade.

1. Endangering species

Wildlife trading is known to diminish populations of wildlife species, consequently causing global and local wildlife extinction. When this illegal trade involves endangered species, the resulting poaching of these species can subject them to the risk of extinction. In any case, sustainability considerations are rare in wildlife trade. As such, it fuels the endangering of species that were previously not threatened. For instance, bushmeat poaching in Africa has significantly reduced the population of previously common species such as zebras and giraffes. Consequently, IUCN has placed the species under the endangered group.

2. Biosecurity risks

Wildlife trade can pose serious health threats to human beings.  For instance, it can introduce deadly bacteria and viruses to humans who aren’t resistant to these disease-causing viruses and bacteria. Parasites and other disease-causing microorganisms often infest wildlife species in transit. Trafficking of these wildlife species can thus pose a severe biosecurity threat to humans as they may cause deadly zoonotic diseases. The latest zoonotic disease that has put the globe on a standstill is the novel coronavirus. As of April 29^th, 2020, the virus had infected over 3 million people.

3. Violence

Poachers with guns alongside other crude weapons fuel violence in wildlife areas.  These weapons kill not only wildlife populations, but also wildlife officials, rangers, police, and other people who may try to protect the wildlife. Wildlife rangers in the world over have been killed and maimed by poaches while in line of duty. Violence can escalate in cases where poachers are organized and heavily armed.

4. Derails wildlife conservation efforts

Apart from the apparent negative biological implications of illegal wildlife trading, this trade has adverse effects on wildlife conservation efforts. Even with sound conservation policies in place, all the wildlife conservation efforts will become futile as long as the business persists. Because of this reason, most conservationists are calling for a global ban on wildlife trade

5. Threat to wildlife

The reduction of wildlife species is ultimately the biggest issue with wildlife trade. The key reason why nations are spending a fortune on fighting illegal wildlife trading is that it poses the biggest threat to wildlife.  When wildlife threatened, the world’s heritage is in jeopardy. If unlawful poaching isn’t addressed effectively, there will be no wildlife roaming on the planet in the coming decades.

Conclusion

Wildlife trade is undoubtedly a vice that governments must confront head-on. This lucrative yet illegal trade has far-reaching implications that can affect vast populations of wildlife and the environment at large.  Worse still, the business is proving challenging to fight. The international community must stop this illegal wildlife trading to protect global wildlife populations. You should also take note that not all wildlife trade is illegal. Organizations and governments should work at communicating the legal wildlife trade as well.