Wildlife Trade and Human Health in Lao PDR: An Assessment of the Zoonotic Disease Risk in Markets.

Although the majority of emerging infectious diseases can be linked to wildlife sources, most pathogen spillover events to people could likely be avoided if transmission was better understood and practices adjusted to mitigate risk. Wildlife trade can facilitate zoonotic disease transmission and represents a threat to human health and economies in Asia, highlighted by the 2003 SARS coronavirus outbreak, where a Chinese wildlife market facilitated pathogen transmission. Additionally, wildlife trade poses a serious threat to biodiversity. Therefore, the combined impacts of Asian wildlife trade, sometimes termed bush meat trade, on public health and biodiversity need assessing. From 2010 to 2013, observational data were collected in Lao PDR from markets selling wildlife, including information on volume, form, species and price of wildlife; market biosafety and visitor origin. The potential for traded wildlife to host zoonotic diseases that pose a serious threat to human health was then evaluated at seven markets identified as having high volumes of trade. At the seven markets, during 21 observational surveys, 1,937 alive or fresh dead mammals (approximately 1,009 kg) were observed for sale, including mammals from 12 taxonomic families previously documented to be capable of hosting 36 zoonotic pathogens. In these seven markets, the combination of high wildlife volumes, high risk taxa for zoonoses and poor biosafety increases the potential for pathogen presence and transmission. To examine the potential conservation impact of trade in markets, we assessed the status of 33,752 animals observed during 375 visits to 93 markets, under the Lao PDR Wildlife and Aquatic Law. We observed 6,452 animals listed by Lao PDR as near extinct or threatened with extinction. The combined risks of wildlife trade in Lao PDR to human health and biodiversity highlight the need for a multi-sector approach to effectively protect public health, economic interests and biodiversity

More than an academic exercise: Structuring international partnerships to build research and professional capacity for conservation impact

10.1111/csp2.539Conservation Science and Practic

Design, monitoring and evaluation of a direct payments approach for an ecotourism strategy to reduce illegal hunting and trade of wildlife in Lao PDR

<div><p>Ecotourism as a strategy for achieving biodiversity conservation often results in limited conservation impact relative to its investment and revenue return. In cases where an ecotourism strategy has been used, projects are frequently criticized for not providing sufficient evidence on how the strategy has reduced threats or improved the status of the biodiversity it purports to protect. In Lao PDR, revenue from ecotourism has not been directly linked to or dependent on improvements in biodiversity and there is no evidence that ecotourism enterprises have contributed to conservation. In other developing countries, direct payments through explicit contracts in return for ecosystem services have been proposed as a more cost-effective means for achieving conservation, although further research is needed to evaluate the impact of this approach. To address this need, a new model was tested in the Nam Et-Phou Louey National Protected Area (NPA) in Lao PDR using a direct payments approach to create ecotourism incentives for villagers to increase wildlife populations. Over a four-year period, we monitored along a theory of change to evaluate assumptions about the linkages between intermediate results and biological outcomes. Preliminary results show a negative correlation between ecotourism benefits and hunting infractions in target villages; no increase in hunting sign in the ecotourism sector of the NPA relative to a three-fold increase in hunting sign across the NPA’s non-tourism sectors; and an overall increase in wildlife sightings. This case provides key lessons on the design of a direct payments approach for an ecotourism strategy, including how to combine threat monitoring and data on wildlife sightings to evaluate strategy effectiveness, on setting rates for wildlife sightings and village fees, and the utility of the approach for protecting very rare species.</p></div

Relationship between village development fund income and hunting infractions by villages in the Nam Nern ecotourism area (the Nam Nern sector of the protected area) from 2009–2013.

<p>Relationship between village development fund income and hunting infractions by villages in the Nam Nern ecotourism area (the Nam Nern sector of the protected area) from 2009–2013.</p

Revenue distribution from the Nam Nern Night Safari (approximate calculation for a group of 2 tourists using costs and prices from years 2 and 3).

<p>Revenue distribution from the Nam Nern Night Safari (approximate calculation for a group of 2 tourists using costs and prices from years 2 and 3).</p

Trend in hunting catch per unit effort in the Nam Nern sector of the TPZ relative to mean hunting catch per unit effort for the five sectors without ecotourism activities in the TPZ from 2009–2013.

<p>Trend in hunting catch per unit effort in the Nam Nern sector of the TPZ relative to mean hunting catch per unit effort for the five sectors without ecotourism activities in the TPZ from 2009–2013.</p

Mean number of sightings of Class 2 and Class 3 wildlife per boat and total bonus money paid for wildlife sightings to the nine villages over a four-year period (2009–2013).

<p>Mean number of sightings of Class 2 and Class 3 wildlife per boat and total bonus money paid for wildlife sightings to the nine villages over a four-year period (2009–2013).</p

Income from ecotourism during the first four years of operation of the Nam Nern Night Safari (2010–2013) for village services and village funds (left axis) and NPA entrance fees (right axis).

<p>Income from ecotourism during the first four years of operation of the Nam Nern Night Safari (2010–2013) for village services and village funds (left axis) and NPA entrance fees (right axis).</p

Bonuses paid into village development fund for each individual tourist on the tour and for the three different classes of wildlife seen per boat while on the tour.

<p>Bonuses paid into village development fund for each individual tourist on the tour and for the three different classes of wildlife seen per boat while on the tour.</p