1 INTRODUCTION

During times of crisis, such as the present COVID-19 pandemic, calls for immediate solutions are typically as rapid as the apportionment of blame. For example, the implication of wildlife consumption as a potential source of COVID-19 (Cohen, 2020; Li et al., 2020) led China to ban the hunting, consumption, trade, and transport of wild animals (including those with important societal values) (Koh et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2021). This reaction is similar to the bans that occurred in west Africa following the 2013–2016 Ebola outbreak (Bonwitt et al., 2018). Vietnam has issued a directive to strengthen existing penalties for illegal trade and consumption of wildlife. Moreover, hundreds of animal rights groups have signed an open letter to the World Health Organization calling for widespread bans internationally, framing wild meat as a luxury status symbol (Briggs, 2020). Total bans on wild animal trade and products fall at the extreme end of the policy continuum, with less-extreme alternatives involving calls to specifically ban the trade of wild mammals and birds for consumption, or to close live animal markets (Roe et al., 2020). However, many restrictions of wildlife hunting, consumption, and trade disproportionately harm those in poverty and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC, defined by IPBES as ethnic groups who are descended from and identify with the original inhabitants of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently; IPBES 2019) (Booth et al., 2021; Roe et al., 2020). As has been noted previously, wild meat is the principal protein source, and animal trade is a key source of income, for millions of people (Booth et al., 2021; Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015; Milner-Gulland & Bennett, 2003; Roe et al., 2020), including many IPLC. So, without measures to balance the impact of such policy, many of the world's poorest people could suffer or die from highly restrictive harvest bans touted as “solutions.” Yet, in addition to the loss of food and income, and to socio-economic conditions associated with high rates of COVID-19-related mortality (Ferrante & Fearnside, 2020), IPLC would be forced to carry a further cultural burden. Because harvest practices involving key species have underpinned many cultures for centuries, any policy mechanisms that inhibit or reduce harvest or consumption of wildlife have the potential to weaken culturally important connections of IPLC with the environment (Ellis et al., 2021; Lyver et al., 2019a). This disconnection can generate the perverse long-term outcomes of disrupting cultural expression and transmission, and thereby further undermining both environmental and cultural resilience (Lyver et al., 2019a).

Here, we urge governments to reject the pressure to unilaterally ban wild meat and, if applying a more nuanced approach to wildlife harvest and trade restrictions, to ensure that policy recognizes the specific harm that can occur to IPLC. In particular, we argue that (1) there is inequity to prohibition of wildlife harvest and trade, both in terms of nutrition and income (Booth et al., 2021; Roe et al., 2020) and by carrying implicit trade-offs among cultural imperatives. For example, we argue that (2) scapegoating wild meat harvests can divert attention from other key contributors to pandemic origin and spread, which may be more typically associated with wealthy and western consumption patterns or people as vectors. Finally, (3) if harvest or trade bans prove to be the optimal solution to pandemics like COVID-19, these need to be balanced by investment into measures to protect income (e.g., increased land ownership rights, payment for ecosystem services, employment in wildlife management or nature-based tourism; Cooney et al., 2017), prevent starvation (e.g., sustainable aquaculture, local-scale farming of low-disease-risk species; Booth et al., 2021), and avert the disruption of culture. To address all these issues, pandemic prevention policy should be developed in partnership with IPLC.

Finally, recovery from crisis provides an opportunity to improve resilience to future crises, and we propose policies that reconnect people with their environments (rather than block connections through wild meat restrictions) to achieve this resilience. We outline the evidence for these arguments and build on recommendations from the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012), highlighting alternative policy directions for dealing with pandemic risk in a more equitable way.