Saturday, December 17, 2022
Reporting ideas: Covid-19 Pandemic, Wildlife and Forest
Forest is determined both by the presence of trees and the absence of other predominant land uses. The trees should be able to reach a minimum height of 5 meters. Forest land with tree crown cover of more than 10 percent and area of more than 0.5 hectares. The trees should be able to reach a minimum of 5 meters at maturity.[1][2]
There are five major climatic domains: boreal, polar, temperate, subtropical and tropical. The largest part of the forest (45%) is found in the tropics, followed by the boreal, temperate, and subtropical domains (SOFO 2020).
Rainforest is one of several forest ecosystems in the world. Rainforest can be defined as a tall, dense plant community, composed essentially though not invariably of moisture-loving, evergreen, broad-leaves trees which tend to be arranged into a number of more or less distinct layers or stories. The trees may show curious stem forms such as buttressing, stilt-roots, and stem fluting; shrubs are often plentiful in the under-story, while climbers and epiphytes are usually frequent.[3]
The SOFO 2020 reported the largest negative change in tree cover was seen in the tropical rainforest, which covers much of Central Africa, the Amazon Basin, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Tropical rainforest area (of total tree cover) is about 1,068 million hectares and 330 million hectares or 30.89% of tree cover located in protected areas.
Rainforest in the tropical areas is rich in biological diversity. According to SOFO 2020 report, the regions showing the highest biodiversity significance are those having many species with small geographical distributions, such as montane forests of South America, Africa and Southeast Asia and lowland forests of insular Southeast Asia, coastal Brazil, Australia, Central Amerika and the Caribbean islands.
How do we journalists see the forest?
- Forest areas – including rainforest in Southeast Asia – are deforested.
- Rainforest – especially in lowland tropical areas – is rich in biological diversity. Biodiversity – flora and fauna – is part of the forest
- There are people near and inside the forest – the indigenous people and locals
- Forest is important to tackle climate change
- Forest is also important for our food and medicine
Our goal as journalists who covering forest issues is to help (policy makers, indigenous people and locals who live near and depend on the forest, scientists and researchers) to stop deforestation and forest degradation.
Covid-19 pandemic, wildlife and deforestation
There was evidence that the new coronavirus or SAR-CoV-2 originated in bats[4] and reached humans most probably after jumping to an intermediate host – the civet (Paguma larvata)[5][6][7] or the Malayan pangolin (Manis javanica).[8] Evidence of virus infection was also detected in a raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides).[9]
The bat borne viruses have emerged in the last 20 years – not only the SAR-CoV – also Nipah virus (NiV), Hendra virus (HeV) and Ebola virus (EBOV).[10]
The database consisted of 1.415 pathogens causing disease in human, 616 in livestock and 374 in domestic carnivores. Multihost pathogens were very prevalent among human pathogens (61.6%) and even more so among domestic mammal pathogens (livestock 77.3%, carnivores 90%). One hundred and ninety-six pathogens were associated with emerging diseases, 175 in human, 29 in livestock and 12 in domestic carnivores.[11]
Research in Vietnam showed six know coronaviruses were detected in samples taken at 70 sites in 2013 and 2014. High proportions of positive samples were found in field rats destined for human consumption: from farms 6%; traders 21%; large markets 32% and restaurant 56%.[12] Coronavirus also found among domestic dogs and other animals in Vietnam.[13] [14] [15] [16]
There is relationship between wild animal (especially mammals) to the pathogens in human who eating wildmeat and to forest degradation. On 5 June 2020 FAO has stated that the global emergence of infectious diseases linked with wild meat consumption, ecosystem disruption, habitat degradation and biodiversity loss. There is evidence that landscape changes and biodiversity loss are key drivers of the (re-)emergence of infectious diseases. Unfortunately, wild species continue to be an important source of food, income and cultural identity for millions of indigenous and rural people, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions.[17]
IUCN’s analysis finds that over 98% or species used for human food (95% of threatened species) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species contains over 9.600 wild species reported to be used for human food. Close to 20% of the species in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as source of human food are classed as threatened.[18]
The Stanford University researchers, Laura Bloomfield and the team, showed how forest loss leads to spread of disease. Between 2011 and 2015, in western of Uganda (around the Kibale National Park) there were differences in the landscape metrics around the households of individuals who has experienced human-NHP (nonhuman primate) contact compared to those who had not had contact. Increased edge density around households, collection of small trees for construction, and foraging and hunting for food in forested habitat significantly increase the likelihood of human-NHP contact.[19]
Research published at Proceeding of the Royal Society B Biological Science found evidence to support the premise that abundant mammal species have shared more viruses with human than less abundant species and that the exploitation of wildlife could have potentiated virus spillover risk. The researchers suspected that pathogen spillover often went unnoticed, with only a proportion of spillover events expanding into outbreaks in people that were subsequently detectable.[20]
These were found by the researchers: a) zoonotic virus richness scales with wild mammalian abundance; b) convergence in drivers for mammalian species declines and zoonotic virus richness; c) domesticated species share the highest number of viruses with human; and d) primates and bats share more viruses with humans.[21]
Research published in Mammal Review, October 2019, documented that there was a significant link between forest loss and fragmentation and outbreak of Ebola virus disease in human. Deforestation might alter the natural circulation of viruses and changed the composition, abundance, behavior and possibly viral exposure of reservoir species. This in turn might increase contact between infected animals and humans. The researchers showed that the positive human influence on four of the fruit bat species that have been serologically linked to the Ebola virus overlaps with areas where Ebola virus disease outbreaks were favored by deforestation.[22]
Indonesia
North Sulawesi is famous for wild meat market. A survey done by EcoHealth Alliance and Primate Research Center of IPB University,[23] in 31 markets and 14 supermarkets in nine districts of North Sulawesi Province from November 2018 to February 2019, found that wildlife meat was routinely available for sale in 23 of the 31 markets surveyed and was occasionally traded in four additional markets, mostly before Christmas and New Year.
We can buy bats, wild pigs, rats and snakes in most of the markets surveyed. Large fruit bats or flying foxes (mostly Acerodon celebensis and Pteropus alecto) were commonly found in almost all wildlife markets (96%). They were sold roasted.
Small fruit bats belonging to the genera Cynopterus, Rousettus, Nyctimene, Thoopterus, and Styloctenium, were sold freshly killed or roasted. Part of wild pigs (Sus celebensis) and snakes (Python sp.) were also sold in most market at Tomohon.
Roasted rats were also very common in wildlife markets (91%). These are called “white tailed rats” by local people. They belong to a large diversity of mostly endemic species including Taeromys celebensis, Rattus xanthurus, Maxomys hellwaldii, Maxomys musschenbroekii, Paruromys dominator, Echiothrix leucura, and Bunomys chrysocomus. These forest species were considered healthier and tastier than black tailed rats hunted in paddy fields such as Rattus hoffmani, Rattus argentiventer, Rattus rattus which also available in some markets at a lower price.
Out of the 19 hunters interviewed in North Sulawesi, most (89%) said they hunted rats, followed by wild pigs (42%), cuscuses (26%), small bats (16%), anoas (10%), snakes (5%), babirusa (5%), and monkey (5%).
Idea #1 – The impact of wildlife meat consumption to the conservation of endangered endemic species in Sulawesi
Reporting ideas:
–Observe the wildlife meat markets
–Interview and observe how the locals eat wildlife meats
–how much wildlife meat sold in a week
–interview experts
–law enforcement from the government (some of the species are protected)
–impact to the biodiversity conservation efforts
–the illegal markets
Resource Person/Experts:
–Dr Alice Latinne – from EcoHealth Alliance – the lead researcher for the survey of wildlife meat in markets. Email: latinne@ecohealthalliance.org
–Dr Joko Pamungkas – from Primate Research Center of IPB University, email: jpi-pssp@indo.net.id
–Dr Noviar Andayani – Executive Director WCS Indonesia Program, email: nandayani@wcs.org Mobile: +628111118891
–Sheherazade (University of Indonesia), email: sheherazade.jayadi@gmail.com
References:
Latinne, A. Et.al. 2020. “Characterizing and quantifying the wildlife trade network in Sulawesi, Indonesia.” Global Ecology and Conservation, 21 (2020) e00887
Sheherazade and Susan M Tsang. 2015. “Quantifying the bat bushmeat trade in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, with suggestions for conservation action.” Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 324-330
TA Ransaleleh, et. al. 2020. “Identification of bats on traditional market in Dumoga District, North Sulawesi.” Earth and Environmental Science, 473 (2020) 012067.
Silfana Taogan, Reynold P. Kainde, Johny S. Tasirin. 2020. “Perdagangan jenis satwa liar di pasar Langowan, Sulawesi Utara.” Cocos, Vol 3, No 3 (2020) https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/index.php/cocos/index
Note for additional ideas:
- There are markets of wildlife meats in other districts through out Indonesia. Journalists who are not in North Sulawesi, can also report the similar cases
- Other idea is to report the illegal trade (not for the meats and alive or preserved dead) of protected animals such as many kinds of birds, mammals (orangutan, monkeys, in Indonesia
- Protected endemic species in Indonesia that related to coronaviruses such as bats, civets, pangolins and others
- How much is the economic value of wild meat market?
- The role of conservation nonprofit organization in stopping the illegal wildlife trade (for meats or for pets)
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos
Idea #2 – Illegal and legal wildlife markets in Vietnam and the impact to biodiversity conservation efforts
The idea is similar with the idea for Indonesia. Vietnam has at least 78 endemic mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian species. Survey done by Traffic[24] in Hanoi showed that Hanoi is increasingly becoming a center for wild animal consumption in the form of health and ornamental products, and especially wild animal food. And many of those popularly consumed are protected under Vietnam law and/or listed in Appendix I or II of CITES.
Vietnam also supplies many wild animal products to other parts of Asia, as well as to the remainder of the global market. As demand has increased and available wild stocks have decreased in Vietnam. Many species are now being sourced in neighboring countries such as Lao PDR and Cambodia.
The survey’s results demonstrate that the demand for wild animal products is not only prevalent, but widely accepted in Hanoi, with food as the most frequently consumed wild animal product. In addition, the survey revealed that people believe the consumption of wild animals in Hanoi is popular and, on the rise, and many identify themselves as future users.
In Ho Chi Minh City demand for wild meat is heterogeneous and highly context specific. Wild-sourced, rare, and expensive wild meat types are eaten by those situated towards the top of the societal hierarchy to convey wealth and status and are commonly consumed in lucrative business contexts. Cheaper, legal and farmed substitutes for wild-sourced meat are also consumed, but typically in more casual consumption or social drinking settings.[25]
Source of the wild meat-type – as surveyed in Ho Chi Minh City[26] – are wild pig (Sus scrofa – listed as ‘least concern’ on IUCN Red List), deer, civet (the most commonly eaten wild meat-types), pangolin (Manis spp – all Asian pangolin species are listed as either ‘endangered’ or ‘critically endangered’ on the IUCN Red List), and king cobra snake.
In Hue city, Thua Thien Hue province, eating wild meat is common. The most common species reported was wild pig (Sus scrofa). Most wild meat consumption in Hue city took place in restaurant (72%).[27]
People in Vietnam also consume rhinoceros (Rhinocerotidae sp.), pangolins (Manis sp.), tigers, and bears (Ursidae sp.) primary for medicinal purposes.[28] [29] [30] [31][32]
Idea #3 – The consumption of bear body parts
Cambodia and Laos, two countries where the illegal hunting for wild bear is still practices. Sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) are threatened by the changing landscapes and societies of the countries within their home range of Asia, and in particular within the region of Southeast Asia. Currently, consumer demand for bear products is unsustainable for preserving wild bear populations.
Within the Greater Mekong Region, Vietnam has been a major focal country of illegal wildlife trade research as it is one of the main “demand-side” countries[33], with illegal trading documented for myriad species.[34] [35] Vietnam remains a prominent consumer country of illegal wildlife parts.[36]
Cambodia and Laos affected by the spill-over of Vietnamese demand as poaching pressure increases. Cambodia was identified as a significant source country for live bears and it was inferred that seized live bears were intended to stock extraction facilities in neighboring countries (Burgess et al. 2014). Some researches estimate of the scale of illegal wildlife consumption within country are scant for Cambodia and show that consumption and trade of wildlife is persistent and rampant within Cambodia, and it is unlikely that all illegal wildlife trade going on in the country is due to demand from external markets.[37] [38]
The same picture is seen in Laos, with wild meat consumption an integral part of “everyday village life”[39] and constant and consistent trade in wildlife both within Laos and across its borders an accepted reality for decades.[40] (Krishnasamy et al., 2018, Livingstone et al., 2018, and Noreen and Claridge, 2001).
Illegal wildlife products being traded at the main market in Stung Treng. Pictured are loris pelts, porcupines, wild pig, and deer. In the yellow bag is a monitor lizard, in the tan bag is a civet, and in the white bag to the upper left is a live loris (Photo by Thona Lim, FTB copied from A PhD dissertation of Elizabeth Oneita Davis, 2019).
Reporting ideas:
–Observe the wildlife meat markets and wildlife body parts for medicinal purposes
–Interview and observe how the locals eat wildlife meats and medicine from wildlife body parts
–how much wildlife meat sold in a week, also for medicine
–interview experts
–law enforcement from the government (some of the species are protected)
–impact to the biodiversity conservation efforts
–the illegal markets
–how to relate to deforestation impacting to wildlife population decreasing
–check the bear population, if possible, find the series of population data
–there is an opportunity for collaboration reporting of journalists in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
Resource Person/Experts:
–Elizabeth John, Senior Communications Officer, TRAFFIC Southeast Asia
Email: elizabeth.john@traffic.org. Mobile: +60378803940/+60122079790
–Anna C. Treydte, University of Hohenheim, Institute of Plant Production and Agroecology in the Tropics and Subtropics, Germany, Email: anna@treydte.com
–Elizabeth Oneita Davis, San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, email: eoneitadavis@gmail.com or edavis@sandiegozoo.org
–Vinh Dang, TRAFFIC Vietnam (formerly), email: the.vinh.dg@gmail.com
–Dr Rebecca Drury, Head of Wildlife Trade at Fauna and Flora International, email: rebecca.drury@fauna-flora.org
–Government officers from each countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos)
References:
Dang, V., Willemsen, M., 2018. Spot survey: insights into medicinal students’ perspectives on the use of wildlife products for traditional medicine in Vietnam. TRAFFIC Bull. 30 (2), 79–84.
Nguyen, M., Willemsen, M., 2016. A rapid assessment of e-commerce wildlife trade in Vietnam. TRAFFIC Bull. 28 (2), 17–19.
Newton, P., Van Thai, N., Roberton, S., Bell, D., 2008. Pangolins in peril: using local hunters’ knowledge to conserve elusive species in Vietnam. Endanger. Species Res. 6 (1), 41–53.
Van Song, N., 2008. Wildlife trading in Vietnam: situation, causes, and solutions. J. Environ. Dev. 17 (2), 145–165.
Shairp, R., Veríssimo, D., Fraser, I., Challender, D., MacMillan, D., 2016. Understanding urban demand for wild meat in Vietnam: implications for conservation actions. PLoS One 11 (1), e0134787.
Sandalj, M, Treydte, A.C., Ziegler, S. 2016. Is wild meat luxury? Quantifying wild meat demand and availability in Hue, Vietnam. Biological Conservation 194 (2016) 105-112
Davis, E.O., Glikman, J.A., Crudge, B., Dang, V., Willemensen, M., Nguyen, T., O’Connor, D., Bendixsen, T. 2019. Consumer demand and traditional medicine prescription of bear products in Vietnam. Biological Conservation 235 (2019) 119-127
Davis, E.O., Willemsen, M., Dang, V., O’Connor, D., Glikman, J.A. 2020. An update analysis of the consumption of tiger products in urban Vietnam. Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e00960
Brooks, E.G.E., Roberton, S.I., Bell, D.J. 2010. The conservation impact of commercial wildlife farming of porcupines in Vietnam. Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2808-2814
McWhirter, R. 2018. Conservation, Consumption, and Livelihoods: Contradictions in conservation projects and audiences in Vietnam. A thesis
Venkataraman, B. 2007. A matter of attitude: The consumption of wild animal products in Hanoi, Vietnam. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Greater Mekong Programme, Hanoi. Vietnam
Drury, R. 2009. Understanding and identifying urban consumers of wild animal products in Hanoi, Vietnam: implications for conservation management. Ph.D. Thesis, Anthropology University College, London, UK
Cao, A.N. and Wyatt, T. 2013. A green criminological exploration of illegal wildlife trade in Vietnam. Asian Journal of Criminology, 8(2), 129-142
Singh, S., 2008. Contesting moralities: the politics of wildlife trade in Laos. Journal of Political Ecology, 15(10), 1-20.
Krishnasamy, K., Shepherd, C.R. and Ching, O.O., 2018. Observations of illegal wildlife trade in Boten, a Chinese border town within a Specific Economic Zone in northern Laos. Global Ecology and Conservation, p.e00390.
Davis, E.O. Understanding use of bear products in Southeast Asia: Human-Oriented Perspectives from Cambodia and Laos. A PhD dissertation. The University of Bristol
Malaysia
Idea #4 – Wildlife meat and zoonosis in Malaysia
One study estimated the annual wildlife meat harvest in the Malaysian state of Sarawak at 23,500 tons.[41] A unpublished survey of wildlife meat establishments (restaurants, roadside stalls, and markets) across Peninsula Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak, done by TRAFFIC, found 21 kinds of wildlife animals. Some of them are two kind of deers (Mutiacus muntjac and Rusa unicolor); Sunda Bearded Pig (Sus barbatus); Eurasian Wild Pig (Sus scrofa); Civet (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus and Viverra tangalunga); Sumatran Serow (Capricornis sumatraensis); Flying Fox (Pteropus vampyrus and Pteropus hypomelanus); Porcupine (Hystrix brachyura); Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus); Water Monitor Lizard (Varanus salvator); Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus); Sun Bear (Helarctos malayanus); Long-tailed Macaque (Macaca fascicularis); Sunda Pangolin (Manis javanica); Tiger (Panthera tigris jacksoni); Leopard (Panthera pardus).[42]
Based on the list of wildlife meat survey, Cantlay, Ingram and Meredith (2017)[43] identified 51 zoonotic pathogens (16 viruses, 19 bacteria and 16 parasites) potentially hosted by wildlife and describe the human health risks. The Suidae (pigs, boars, hogs) and Cervidae (deer) families potentially host the highest number of pathogens.
Reporting ideas:
–Field reporting to markets, restaurants, street stalls in Serawak and Semenanjung
–Reporting to hospitals to find data on zoonosis cases
–Ministry of Health to get national data on zoonosis cases
–Interview experts on zoonosis
–What is the impact of wildlife meat consumption to forest and deforestation
–how forest conversion (or land use change) impact to the life of wild animals
–how much Malaysian consume wildlife meat in a year, find the data from TRAFFIC
Resource persons/experts:
–Jennifer Caroline Cantlay, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, the University of Edinburgh, email: jenny@cantlay.net (or contact online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-017-1229-x/email/correspondent/c1/new)
–Elizabeth John, Senior Communications Officer, TRAFFIC Southeast Asia Email: elizabeth.john@traffic.org. Mobile: +60378803940/+60122079790
–Chris R Shepherd, Bear Specialist Group, Trade in Bear Parts Expert Team, TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Malaysia. Email: chris.shepherd@traffic.org
–Kae Kawanishi, Malaysian Conservation Alliance for Tigers. Email: kae@malayantiger.net
–Melvin T. Gumal, Wildlife Conservation Society-Malaysia Program. Email: mgumal@wcs.org
–D Mark Rayan, WWF-Malaysia. Email: mdarmaraj@wwf.org.my
References:
Cantlay, J.C., Ingram, D.J., Meredith, A.L. 2017. A review of zoonotic infection risks associated with the wild meat trade in Malaysia. EcoHealth 14, 361-388
Kawanishi, K., Rayan, D.M., Gumal, M.T., Shepherd, C.R. 2014. Extinction process of the sambar in Peninsula Malaysia. DSG Newsletter No 26
Krishnasamy, K. and Shepherd, C.R. 2014. A review of the sun bear trade in Sarawak, Malaysia. TRAFFIC Bulletin Vol. 26 No. 1
Bartholomew, C.V. 2017. Hunting of threatened wildlife species by indigenous people in Kenyir, Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia: Prevalence, predictors, perceptions and practices. A thesis. Universiti Malaysia Terengganu.
Shepherd, C.R. and Krishnasamy, K. 2013. Increased enforcement and reduced demand: Tackling the illegal bear trade in Malaysia. International Bear News, Vol. 22. No.3, 25-27
Asimopoulos, Stamatios. 2016. Human-wildlife conflict mitigation in Peninsular Malaysia: Lesson learnt, current views and future directions. A thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Krishnasamy, K. and Stoner, S. 2016. Trading Faces: A Rapid Assessment on the use of Facebook to Trade Wildlife in Peninsular Malaysia. TRAFFIC. Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/2434/trading-faces-facebook-malasia.pdf
Krishnasamy, K. and Zavagli, M. 2020. Southeast Asia: At the heart of wildlife trade. TRAFFIC, Southeast Asia Regional Office, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/12648/sea-traps-february-2020.pdf
Thailand
There is not many reports on wild meat in Thailand. Hunting of wild animals is till appears to be common practice. Major factor driving illegal hunting and trading of wildlife for supplying the local (and international) market are the rapid growth of the Thai population together with the development of transportation and promotion of tourism, high income travelers willing to pay high price for illicit hunting of rare, protected species, while it is widely believed among rural people that eating wild meat will enhance good health and increase lifespan.[44]
These illegal hunting activities and trades mostly occur at the boundaries between communities and wildlife sanctuaries or national parks and the border areas between Thailand and neighboring countries. Wild boar meat is the most common wild meat among local people. Several risks for human diseases have been reported.[45]
Wild animals hunted for meat are monkey, langur, bear, wild pig, gaur, banteng, wild water buffalo, tiger, barking deer, mouse deer, hog deer, eld’s deer, monitor, crocodile, squirel, pangolin, civet, terrapin, snake and birds. Report from the CITES Management Authorities of Thailand (2012) stated 433 cases under the Wildlife Reservation and Protection Act B.E. 2535. A total of 10,892 live protected wild animals and 2,869 carcasses (for more than 3 tons) were seized as evidence.[46] [47]
A six-month online survey from 22 October 2018 to 19 April 2019 done by TRAFFIC, found a minimum 236 Facebook posts offering a minimum of 546 hornbill parts and products in 32 of 40 groups surveyed. These were posted over a period of 64 months. The availability of hornbill commodities on Facebook rose in early 2015 to a peak in 2016 and another peak in early 2018 was recorded.[48]
Reporting ideas:
–Observe the wild meat markets and wildlife body parts
–Interview and observe how the locals who hunt wild animals for meats and medicine from wildlife body parts
–check the bird markets if there is any hornbill parts
–interview experts
–law enforcement from the government (most of the species are protected)
–impact to the biodiversity conservation efforts
–the illegal markets for protected wild animals for export purpose to other countries, relate to online market at social media sites (on Facebook and other social media)
–how to relate to deforestation impacting to wildlife hunting and population decreasing
–check the hornbill population, if possible, find the series of population data
–there is an opportunity for collaboration reporting of journalists with Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos journalists.
Resource persons/experts:
–Elizabeth John, Senior Communications Officer, TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Email: elizabeth.john@traffic.org. Mobile: +60378803940/+60122079790
–Pornsawan Pongsopawijit, D.V.M, Assistant Professor at Chiang Mai University. Email: pornsawan.p@cmu.ac.th. Phone: +66(0)53948055
–Dr Nattakarn Awaiwanont, Deputy Dean for Education Services at Chiang Mai University. Email: nattakarn.a@cmu.ac.th
–CITES Office in Thailand (https://cites.org/eng/cms/index.php/component/cp/country/TH). Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Email: citesthailand@yahoo.com; Phone: +66(2)5614838; 9406449
–WCS Thailand Program. Email: wcsthailand@wcs.org. Phone: +66(0)25034478/+66(0)25034479
References:
Awaiwanont, N., Pongsopawijit, P., Paulsen, P. 2014. “Bushmeat consumption and possible risks to consumers in Thailand. Chapter 7. From: Paulsen, P., Bauer, A., Smulders, F.J.M. 2014. Trends in Game Meat Hygiene: From Forest to Fork. Wageningen Academic Publisher
Phassaraudomsak, M., Krishnasamy, K., and Chng, S.C.L. 2019. Trading Faces: Online trade of Helmeted and other hornbill species on Facebook in Thailand. TRAFFIC, Southeast Asia Regional Office, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/12381/trading-faces-helmeted-hornbill_final.pdf
Krishnasamy, K. and Zavagli, M. 2020. Southeast Asia: At the heart of wildlife trade. TRAFFIC, Southeast Asia Regional Office, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/12648/sea-traps-february-2020.pdf
Cantlay, J.C., Ingram, D.J., Meredith, A.L. 2017. A review of zoonotic infection risks associated with the wild meat trade in Malaysia. EcoHealth 14, 361-388
Government of Thailand. 2019. Thailand’s Sixth National Report on the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity to the Secretariat CBC Convention. https://www.cbd.int/doc/nr/nr-06/th-nr-06-en.pdf
General reference:
Paulsen, P., Bauer, A., Smulders, F.J.M. 2014. Trends in Game Meat Hygiene: From Forest to Fork. Wageningen Academic Publisher
Marshall, A. 2006. Making a Killing. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 62(2), 36-42
Gray, T.N.E., Hughes, A.C., Laurance, W.F. et al. 2018. The wildlife snaring crisis: an insidious and pervasive threat to biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Biodivers Conserv 27, 1031-1037
(Note: prepared for SEA RJF of Pulitzer Center – https://pulitzercenter.org/panggilan-proposal-dana-hibah-jurnalisme-hutan-hujan-asia-tenggara)
[1] Evans, J., Youngquist, J.A. Burley, J. 2004. Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences, Volume 1-4
[2] See http://www.fao.org/3/ap862e/ap862e00.pdf
[3] Unasylva, No. 72 Vol. 18 (1) 1964 (http://www.fao.org/3/03500e/03500e00.htm)
[4] See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63799-7
[5] Cui, J., Li, F. and Shi, Z.L. (2019) Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses. Nat Rev Microbiol 17, 181–192
[6] Wang L.F., Eaton B.T. (2007) Bats, Civets and the Emergence of SARS. In: Childs J.E., Mackenzie J.S., Richt J.A. (eds) Wildlife and Emerging Zoonotic Diseases: The Biology, Circumstances and Consequences of Cross-Species Transmission. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, vol 315. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
[7] See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1212604/
[8] Liu, P., Chen, W. and Chen, J.P. (2019) Viral metagenomics revealed sendai virus and coronavirus infection of Malayan pangolins (Manis javanica). Viruses 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/v11110979
[9] See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12958366/
[10] See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879625712001861
[11] See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088494/pdf/TB010991.pdf
[12] See https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2020/06/10/2020.06.05.098590.full.pdf
[13] See https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jvms/advpub/0/advpub_16-0538/_pdf
[14] See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7088966/pdf/11262_2019_Article_1647.pdf
[15] See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693393/pdf/15306396.pdf
[16] See https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2001272
[17] See http://www.fao.org/3/ca9456en/CA9456EN.pdf
[18] See http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/ca3129en.pdf
[19] See https://news.stanford.edu/2020/04/08/understanding-spread-disease-animals-human/ and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-020-00995-w
[20] See https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2736
[21] Idem
[22] See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336910331_Human_activities_link_fruit_bat_presence_to_Ebola_virus_disease_outbreaks
[23] See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235198941930678X
[24] See https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/3374/matter-of-attitude-viet-nam.pdf
[25] See https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134787
[26] Idem
[27] See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287796940_Is_wild_meat_luxury_Quantifying_wild_meat_demand_and_availability_in_Hue_Vietnam
[28] See https://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2008/6/n006p041.pdf
[29] See https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134787
[30] See https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1070496508316220
[31] See https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/11356/bulletin-30_2-tm-viet-nam.pdf
[32] See https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/16275/
[33] See https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/16275/
[34] See https://www.trafficj.org/publication/12_The_SouthAfrica-VietNam_RhinoHorn_Trade_Nexus.pdf
[35] See https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11417-012-9154-y.pdf
[36] See https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26393047.pdf
[37] See https://cms.fauna-flora.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FFI_2018_Exploring-Bushmeat-Consumption-Behaviours.pdf
[38] See https://www.wildlifealliance.org/2017-annual-report/
[39] See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43500747_Contesting_moralities_The_politics_of_wildlife_trade_in_Laos
[40] See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989418300052
[41] See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229853677_Is_There_a_Link_between_Wild_Meat_and_Food_Security
[42] See https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10393-017-1229-x.pdf
[43] Idem
[44] See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300576780_7_Bushmeat_consumption_and_possible_risks_to_consumers_in_Thailand
[45] Idem
[46] Idem
[47] Check the Details of specimens seized, confiscated or forfeited in year 2013 here: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/reports/13-14Thailand.pdf
[48] See https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/12381/trading-faces-helmeted-hornbill_final.pdf
