Covid-19 and nature: links that must not be ignored
Quite rightly, the first response to Covid-19 has been to try to reduce the death toll and stop the spread of the coronavirus which causes it. But we would be wise also to understand where Covid-19 has come from and, particularly, how we can prevent more such pandemics in the future. Here is what we know so far.
Almost certainly the virus began in China. It’s most likely origin was in illegally-traded bats from a market in the city of Wuhan. Whether the bat was alive or dead, eaten, or had its parts used for medicine is less clear. But it is highly likely that a previously unknown pathogen passed from a bat to a human as a result of human interaction with a wild species. Coronavirus, like climate change, is a vivid and brutal example of the boomerang effect of human’s short-sighted and selfish treatment of nature and the wider environment.
We must nuance this by saying other causes of Covid-19 cannot be ruled out, but at this stage the science is relatively clear and, if proven, will undoubtedly reinforce the view that the more we interfere with nature, the more harmful nature can be to us, whether that be a pathogen, global heating or another as yet unknown assailant.
Interactions between animals and people however are growing exponentially in many parts of the world. This is due to their habitats, for example rainforests and wetlands, being encroached upon for new farmland and for building of new towns and cities. This is a particular problem in Asia and North America, and even in Europe this is leading to conflict. The conflict is not just about the loss of physical space, but about people increasingly interacting with animals that may carry novel diseases that human immune systems have not previously been exposed to. Reducing human-animal interactions by avoiding building in conservation-rich areas and securing nature reserves and national parks from poaching, illegal logging and hunting is critical.
Going forward, we need to focus on rewilding larger areas to maintain the gene pool and disease resistance of nature itself. For example, 60% of the UK used to be covered in mixed forest. Today this has been reduced to about 10% and much of that is plantation forestry of little use to native wildlife. As habitats get fragmented, the gene pool becomes isolated and it then becomes more and more likely for new pathogens to wipe out entire populations of plant or animal species. One solution is to re-wild larger areas of the planet and reconnect broken and fragmented habitats across the globe to enable species to mix and the gene pool to thrive.
As caretakers to creation, Christians can take a lead in underlining the moral responsibility to protect species and habitats for the health of nature and humans alike.
As the UK deals with the tragic aftermath of Covid-19 and seeks to avoid another peak, now is a good time to write to your MP. Encourage them to push for a ban on all trade of wild species unless under exceptional circumstances, not just in the UK but in other nations too.
If we speak up now, as Christians and Churches, we will not only help reverse biodiversity declines, but reduce the chances of future pandemics of this nature.
Andy Lester, A Rocha UK Head of Conservation.
A very vital and timely warning. Thanks for all you are doing for the planet in caring for God’s earth.
Stan Crees
I like the idea epressed here but i am not sure how true it is.
Humans have always had contact with other animals, taming them, herding them, shooting them or, in the case of smaller invertebrates, being stung by them or treading on them. I do not see that the current expansion of human ocupation is intrinsically different to what has gone on before.
Although I do recognise that more permanent invasion of wild areas may bring humans into contact with individual animals with which we have not had previous contact. But explorers who explore forests, mountains or wetlands are more likely to make these sorts of contact.
If coronavirus came from a bat, we need to know what sort of bat and find out why humanity had not had previous contact with the virus (eg how prevalent it is in bats of this species and what impact it has on them)
Until we know this we cannot asy whether the these of your agrument is correct.
Have you read Claire Robinson’s new scientific analytical piece about all this? https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19410
Note the excellent and continuing factual series in the Economist magazine along similar lines and also of linkage between pandemics and environmental care with interesting thoughts of cap and trade / carbon taxes. Illustrates the large shifts in behaviours that have to be undertaken e.g. “greening” of the concrete / construction industries. And even if these are made, we are going to have to live most probably with the consequences of global warming and future pandemics.
There is only going to be a short time timescale before global politics will become ossified again. A big question is to how to create global governmental actions with the disjoint between some interests and the diverse individuals. A role for the church here? A role for A Rocha to be a catalyst?
I believe there is evidence that covid 19 passed between 2 animal species before mutating and infecting humans. Loss of habitat forces species that would normally avoid each other into close proximity allowing for the possibility of viral transfer. In addition the “wet” markets increase risk further by keeping wild animals of different species caged next to each other in conditions of poor hygiene where viral mutation and transfer is easy. A combination of habitat restoration and abolition of these type of markets is needed.
Thanks Andy – interesting piece. I’m not entirely comfortable with your phrase “…nature and humans alike” though, or with its implications. Aren’t we part of the natural world too? If rewiliding means “separating humans from the rest of God’s creation”, we should be cautious of it. The idea that humans are not part of nature is what got us into this climate mess in the first place.