Governance of the wildlife trade and the prevention of emerging zoonoses: a mixed methods network analysis of transnational organisations, silos, and power dynamics.

INTRODUCTION: The wildlife trade is an important arena for intervention in the prevention of emerging zoonoses, and leading organisations have advocated for more collaborative, multi-sectoral approaches to governance in this area. The aim of this study is to characterise the structure and function of the network of transnational organisations that interact around the governance of wildlife trade for the prevention of emerging zoonoses, and to assess these network characteristics in terms of how they might support or undermine progress on these issues. METHODS: This study used a mixed methods social network analysis of transnational organisations. Data were collected between May 2021 and September 2022. Participants were representatives of transnational organisations involved in the governance of wildlife trade and the prevention of emerging zoonoses. An initial seed sample of participants was purposively recruited through professional networks, and snowball sampling was used to identify additional participants. Quantitative data were collected through an online network survey. Measures of centrality (degree, closeness, and betweenness) were calculated and the network's largest clique was identified and characterised. To understand the extent to which organisations were connected across sectors, homophily by sector was assessed using exponential random graph modelling. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews. The findings from the quantitative analysis informed the focus of the qualitative analysis. Qualitative data were explored using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants completed the network survey and 17 key informants participated in semi-structured interviews. A total of 69 organisations were identified as belonging to this network. Organisations spanned the animal, human, and environmental health sectors, among others including trade, food and agriculture, and crime. Organisation types included inter-governmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, treaty secretariats, research institutions, and network organisations. Participants emphasised the highly inter-sectoral nature of this topic and the importance of inter-sectoral work, and connections were present across existing sectors. However, there were many barriers to effective interaction, particularly conflicting goals and agendas. Power dynamics also shaped relationships between actors, with the human health sector seen as better resourced and more influential, despite having historically lower engagement than the environmental and animal health sectors around the wildlife trade and its role in emerging zoonoses. CONCLUSION: The network of transnational organisations focused on the governance of wildlife trade and the prevention of emerging zoonoses is highly multi-sectoral, but despite progress catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic, barriers still exist for inter-sectoral interaction and coordination. A One Health approach to governance at this level, which has gained traction throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, was shared as a promising mechanism to support a balancing of roles and agendas in this space. However, this must involve agreement around equity, priorities, and clear goal setting to support effective action.

Agreements for conserving migratory shorebirds in the Asia-Pacific are better fit for addressing habitat loss than hunting.

A full-life cycle approach is a tenet of migratory species conservation, yet the degree to which this is achieved remains largely unassessed. This knowledge gap can be addressed using the concept of social-ecological fit, understood as the match between governance and ecological dimensions. Here, we assess the social-ecological fit for conserving migratory shorebirds in the Asia-Pacific, focusing on habitat loss and hunting. We identify the governance architectures for addressing these two threats and then assess the coordinating capacity of each architecture, measure institutional coverage for each species across their range, and determine the degree of institutional connectivity along their migratory network. We find that social-ecological fit is higher for the governance of habitat designation than for hunting management, with implications for governance practice. Analyses of social-ecological fit thus provide critical insights on the potential effectiveness of governance and therefore are a useful first step for migratory species conservation.

Global governance for pandemic prevention and the wildlife trade.

Although ideas about preventive actions for pandemics have been advanced during the COVID-19 crisis, there has been little consideration for how they can be operationalised through governance structures within the context of the wildlife trade for human consumption. To date, pandemic governance has mostly focused on outbreak surveillance, containment, and response rather than on avoiding zoonotic spillovers in the first place. However, given the acceleration of globalisation, a paradigm shift towards prevention of zoonotic spillovers is warranted as containment of outbreaks becomes unfeasible. Here, we consider the current institutional landscape for pandemic prevention in light of ongoing negotiations of a so-called pandemic treaty and how prevention of zoonotic spillovers from the wildlife trade for human consumption could be incorporated. We argue that such an institutional arrangement should be explicit about zoonotic spillover prevention and focus on improving coordination across four policy domains, namely public health, biodiversity conservation, food security, and trade. We posit that this pandemic treaty should include four interacting goals in relation to prevention of zoonotic spillovers from the wildlife trade for human consumption: risk understanding, risk assessment, risk reduction, and enabling funding. Despite the need to keep political attention on addressing the current pandemic, society cannot afford to miss the opportunity of the current crisis to encourage institution building for preventing future pandemics.

Crowdfunding biodiversity conservation.

Raising funds is critical for conserving biodiversity and hence so is scrutinizing emerging financial mechanisms that may help achieve this goal. Anecdotal evidence indicates crowdfunding is being used to support activities needed for biodiversity conservation, yet its magnitude and allocation remain largely unknown. To help address this knowledge gap, we conducted a global analysis based on conservation-focused projects extracted from crowdfunding platforms. For each project, we determined the funds raised, date, country of implementation, proponent characteristics, activity type, biodiversity realm, and target taxa. We identified 72 relevant platforms and 577 conservation-focused projects that raised $4,790,634 since 2009. Although proponents were based in 38 countries, projects were delivered across 80 countries, indicating a potential mechanism of resource mobilization. Proponents were affiliated with nongovernmental organizations (35%) or universities (30%) or were freelancers (26%). Most projects were for research (40%), persuasion (31%), and on-the-ground actions (21%). Projects were more focused on species (57.7%) and terrestrial ecosystems (20.3%), and less focused on marine (8.8%) and freshwater ecosystems (3.6%). Projects focused on 208 species, including a disproportionate number of threatened birds and mammals. Crowdfunding for biodiversity conservation is a global phenomenon and there is potential for expansion, despite possible pitfalls (e.g., uncertainty about effectiveness). Opportunities to advance conservation through crowdfunding arise from its capacity to mobilize funds spatially and increase steadily over time, inclusion of overlooked species, adoption by multiple actors, and funding of activities beyond research. Our findings pave the way for further research on key questions, such as campaign success rates, effectiveness of conservation actions, and drivers of crowdfunding adoption. Even though crowdfunding capital raised has been modest relative to other conservation-finance mechanisms, its contribution goes beyond funding research and providing capital. Embraced with due care, crowdfunding could become an important financial mechanism for biodiversity conservation.