Jungle was massive
6 minute read
How did we get here?
Disease outbreaks have been steadily increasing over the past few decades. Research conducted by Smith et al. published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface found that between 1980 and 2013 there were 12,102 separate outbreaks of 215 human infectious diseases, comprising of more than 44 million cases recorded in every country on earth. Within that period, the trend has been increasing. Globalisation and urbanisation have been linked to this rise – logical enough; an increasingly connected world with people living at high densities is paradise for an infectious disease, but the most compelling factor identified is in fact deforestation – which has been linked to 31% of the disease outbreaks.
Deforestation forces wild animals out of their natural habitats and toward human populations, which increases the chances of zoonotic transmission (animal to human, as is believed to have been the case with COVID-19). Moreover, large scale human displacement caused by events linked to climate change (floods, droughts, sea level rises etc.) tend to create conditions where diseases such as malaria, measles and respiratory infections are rife. Our warming climate has also accelerated transmission patterns, for example, by increasing the spread of disease vectors like mosquitos. This has led to diseases usually associated with the tropics, such as outbreaks of Dengue fever, being recorded far further afield.
It's not just the causes being amplified, deforestation puts the cures are under pressure too – it is estimated that around 50% of modern drugs have been developed from natural products which are now threatened by biodiversity loss. Modern medical innovations in genetic therapies is breaking new ground in terms of disease treatment and prevention but what is clear is that loss of our natural resources will severely clip the wings of future medical innovations.
So what can we do? Lots actually. Companies in the manufacturing, agriculture and commerce sectors have influence on their supply chains; financial institutions have influence over the flow of capital around the world. All could aid reforestation and afforestation, or at the very least reduce deforestation should they choose exert their influence via their choice of suppliers, business practices and investment decisions. Sound familiar? Yes, this is exactly how firms can help battle climate change and like climate change, deforestation is getting worse not better (though clearly the two are intrinsically linked). Researchers from the University of Maryland estimated that the tropics lost 12 million hectares in 2018 (the fourth highest since records began) and 2019 is expected to be worse still, particularly given the abnormally severe forest fire season.
Thankfully, it has become widespread for firms to have policies in place that describe their approach to limiting climate change. The same cannot be said for deforestation. Last month, environmental NGO Global Canopy published their eighth annual Forest 500 report which ranks the most influential companies and financial institutions in forest risk commodity supply chains. Agricultural commodities are the single largest deforestation culprit which puts financial institutions in a uniquely influential position when making decisions on project financing (in exactly the same way as they do for fossil fuel extraction) and when working with clients to limit the impact of their operations. Of the 150 institutions evaluated by the report, 102 were found to have no deforestation policies at all. The top 5 rated institutions were BNP Paribas, Deutsche, ING, Standard Chartered and Rabobank. According to the report UBS have adopted the 'Soft Commodities Compact' which looks at how banks can help clients achieve net-zero deforestation in the key soft commodities; it also notes that due to a lack of consumer, governmental and competitive pressures, progress of the Compact in general has been limited.
Though clearly not mutually exclusive, a coordinated global response to deforestation is even further behind where we are on climate change. Until we see this issue being addressed systematically and globally at a legislative level we should expect to see infectious disease outbreaks continue to rise both in frequency and severity. We can only hope that medical innovations and the public health lessons learned from COVID-19 will help us prevent the next outbreak becoming the next pandemic.
American economist Milton Friedman famously said: “Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change”. Once this pandemic does pass, nations will need to decide how to rebuild their economies and to a certain extent, their societies – perhaps this might provide the additional traction needed for the Green New Deal to proliferate. The degree to which countries recovery and stimulus plans will be based around green and other sustainable principles will vary. This could create a unique moment of coalescence for the world and might provide a fascinating natural experiment as we observe the effectiveness of different strategies from a broadly similar starting point and time. I expect there will be plenty more to write on this subject in the coming months.