Enhancing legislation and ensuring law enforcement for zoonotic disease in Vietnam

Vu Minh Tam, Hoang Thu Thao, Le Mai

In Vietnam, management of wildlife diseases has garnered attention from both the State and the public. This is evident through a comprehensive system of regulations addressing diseases that can be transmitted from wildlife to humans spanning a range of documents, from laws to decrees and circulars. However, despite these efforts, the practical implementation of wildlife disease management still encounters numerous challenges and shortcomings.

Over the past few decades, the world has grappled with emerging infectious diseases in humans. Research has shown that approximately 60 percent of the emerging infectious diseases in humans are sourced from animals, and most of those originated from wildlife^[1]. Some wildlife-origin pathogens are Ebola, SARS, MERS, rabies, malaria, dengue fever, HIV/AIDS, monkeypox, etc.^[2] Currently, the development of wildlife trading and transportation activities, both legal and illegal, has further pushed humans into high-risk wildlife-human interfaces, in which every link of the supply chain poses the potential risk of transmitting diseases between animals and humans^[3]. It is concerning that animal breeding and keeping facilities often neglect critical aspects such as housing conditions, hygiene, and safety. The absence of robust plans to respond to and prevent animal diseases also poses significant risks. Moreover, unsanitary conditions in wildlife collection, captivity, display, and slaughter sites become breeding grounds for pathogens^[4]. In addition, disease outbreaks linked to wildlife may also occur during activities like hunting, storage, and transportation, etc.

Vietnam’s law currently encompasses a system of regulations governing the management of infectious diseases in wildlife. These regulations include the 2007 Law on Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases, the 2015 Law on Animal Health, and related sub-law documents. However, while these legal provisions emphasize the role of state agencies in charge of animal health and focus on disease surveillance, quarantine, hygiene, and outbreak response, they predominantly address common animals, livestock, and terrestrial wildlife. Yet, it’s essential to recognize that wildlife comprises diverse species, each with distinct natural habitats, environments, and behaviors that differ significantly from those of livestock.

Difficulties and problems in managing wildlife diseases

In Vietnam, management of wildlife diseases has garnered attention from both the State and the public. This is evident through a comprehensive system of regulations addressing diseases that can be transmitted from wildlife to humans spanning a range of documents, from laws to decrees and circulars. However, despite these efforts, the practical implementation of wildlife disease management still encounters numerous challenges and shortcomings.

For the time being, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is one of the most important and widely applied frameworks for the protection of endangered wildlife and the management of wildlife diseases. However, this convention does not address the exploitation, trade, use, or consumption of other wildlife species. CITES has not yet fully resolved the issues of illegal wildlife trade (IWT) and species extinction, as it only protects a modest number of species (0.45 percent of 8 million species)^[5]. Furthermore, Circular 07/2016/TT-BNNPTNT on prevention and control of terrestrial animal diseases primarily focuses on domestic animals (including livestock, poultry, and pets). Due to the differing characteristics between wild animals and livestock, many disease management experts have noted that some regulations applied to animals in general may not be suitable for wild animals. Additionally, veterinary hygiene regulations are inadequate, as Circular 09/2016/TT-BNNPTNT does not regulate the control of slaughter for farmed wild animals (such as crocodiles, porcupines, bamboo rats, wild boars, etc.) or wild animals that are allowed to be hunted.

The management of wildlife diseases faces several significant challenges. First and foremost, there is a shortage of highly qualified human resources dedicated to this critical field. Additionally, public awareness of the severity of indiscriminate wildlife hunting remains inadequate. Transforming long-standing customs and habits doesn’t happen overnight, and unfortunately, violations related to wildlife carry the risk of disease transmission from animals to humans. One notable issue is the prevalent consumption of wildlife. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, there persists an “exaggeration” of wildlife’s medicinal properties, leading to high demand for wildlife products in Vietnam and therefore posing considerable difficulties for effective wildlife disease management^[6]. Moreover, limited budgetary resources further strain efforts in this area. Objective elements such as the environment and climate also influence the emergence and spread of infectious diseases between animals and humans.^[7]

Solutions for improving regulations on management of zoonotic diseases

Revising regulations on the prevention and control of diseases in terrestrial animals

In order to improve the country’s regulations on management of zoonotic diseases, the first thing to do is to revise Circular 07/2016/TT-BNNPTNT on the prevention and control of terrestrial animal diseases (Circular 07).

Despite of its title, Circular 07, which regulates the prevention and control of diseases in terrestrial animals, including also wild animals, as interpreted within the context of the Law on Animal Health, focuses primarily on preventing and controlling diseases in domestic animals. However, wild animals encompass a diverse array of species, each with unique natural habitats, environmental requirements, and behaviors distinct from those of typical domesticated ones. Consequently, regulations may not be entirely suitable when applied to wild species. The existing list of diseases transmitted from animals to humans, as outlined in Circular 07, predominantly addresses diseases transmitted from domestic animals. Urgent attention is needed from competent agencies to review and supplement this list, specifically considering the risks of disease transmission in wild animals.

Another legal issue is related to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Decision 4737/QD-BNN-TCLN, promulgating the List of other terrestrial animals belonging to the classes of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, that are not subject to management as wild animals specified in Article 1.4 of Government Decree 84/2021/ND-CP of September 22, 2021. Specifically, the List attached to such Decision comprises a total of 27 species of the three classes of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals. Hence, except these 27 species, all other terrestrial animals belonging to the classes of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals are considered wild animals. However, Circular 07 only provides lists related to animal diseases, diseases transmitted between animals and humans, and diseases prohibited for slaughtering and treatment, it lacks comprehensive coverage of wildlife species. Notably, birds, amphibians, and reptiles have not been adequately addressed in such Circular.

Therefore, it is necessary to expand the scope of regulation to encompass a broader range of wildlife species; further update the list of species as well as their quantities and status. Additionally, wildlife species should be categorized based on their habits, natural habitats, and specific environments. This approach will allow us to tailor disease monitoring and management regimes to the unique needs of each group.

Gaps, overlaps and inconsistencies in the legal framework governing wildlife and disease management also pose great challenges. For instance, the 2015 Law on Animal Health addresses the emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases; the 2007 Law on Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases contains regulations on the protocols for handling infectious diseases, thus covering the restriction and prevention of diseases transmitted from wildlife. The 2020 Law on Environmental Protection also includes provisions on prevention of transmission of diseases from wildlife, as stipulated in Article 6.3, which outlines prohibited acts in environmental protection activities. Unfortunately, these regulations remain unsynchronized and scattered across various laws, making it difficult to fully grasp information related to zoonotic disease management. To address this, attention should be paid to communication, education, and legal explanations to prevent misunderstandings and ensure timely application of new regulations. Moreover, the Government should closely monitor and supervise zoonotic disease management in wildlife so as to promptly issue sub-law documents and instructions, while fostering cooperation between state agencies and social organizations in management of zoonotic diseases.

Formulating of a set of technical regulations on control of diseases in wild animals at commercial and non-commercial wildlife breeding facilities

Wildlife farms serve as critical points in wildlife disease management due to their high potential for disease emergence and transmission. Frequent interactions between humans and animals create an environment where diseases can easily spread from wildlife. Consequently, effective disease control at wildlife farms becomes paramount to significantly reduce the risk of disease outbreaks originating from wildlife. However, a 2020 field survey conducted by the People and Nature Reconciliation (PanNature) revealed several concerning trends. Many mixed wildlife farms lack proper technical conditions, leading to suboptimal veterinary care. Additionally, there is often limited awareness of potential disease sources, which perpetually threatens livestock^[8].

Therefore, technical guidelines for disease control at both commercial and non-commercial wildlife breeding facilities play a crucial role. These guidelines regulate the facilities themselves and establish animal disease-free zones. By doing so, they contribute to creating a robust legal framework for control of wildlife diseases at these breeding facilities. This supplementation enhances the overall legal system governing disease management in wildlife and translates theory into practical measures, ultimately improving the effectiveness of wildlife disease management.

To this end, clear and accessible “technical regulations on control of zoonotic diseases at wildlife farms” should be developed. These documents should use simple and common language to ensure it reaches a broad audience, targeting wildlife farm owners and employees who play a pivotal role in implementing and supervising disease control measures in these facilities. The next steps are to establish a synchronized implementation mechanism and closely monitor disease control practices at wildlife farms.

Additionally, these technical regulations should be built upon three core criteria: (i) preventing pathogen introduction, (ii) halting pathogen spread, and (iii) avoiding pathogen export. These fundamental criteria can be further refined by specifying requirements and mandatory conditions on various stakeholders impacting the control of diseases at wildlife breeding facilities, including wildlife, animals outside the farm, humans, and the breeding environment.

 Developing a disease management model based on the liability regime

Individuals, legal entities, and organizations granted the right to participate in the wildlife value chain, as stipulated by law, should bear responsibility for any harm resulting from disease transmission and proactively implement measures to enhance biosafety.

It is crucial to establish and disseminate standardized criteria for assessing the “level of risk” associated with each wildlife related project. These criteria will help determine legal responsibilities, responsible entities, and the appropriate level of accountability when an epidemic occurs in a given area. The “level of risk” may consider factors such as the number of animals capable of carrying pathogens, the potential diseases that may arise, and predictions regarding the scope of epidemic spread. Preventive measures can be promptly implemented, and the cost of managing the epidemic can be estimated. Additionally, specific regulations outlining infectious diseases for which individuals and organizations will be held accountable for mitigating consequences should be formulated. If these responsibilities extend across a large area or are linked to an epidemic with significant potential for rapid spread, the liability regime would serve as a preventive measure aiming to avoid the substantial costs that could arise from managing multiple simultaneous epidemics^[9].

Measures for ensuring law enforcement

Establishing a National Fund for Wildlife Disease Management

First of all, a National Fund for Wildlife Disease Management should be set up and placed under the management of the Ministry of Finance. Such a fund would be used for activities like organizing events to disseminate laws related to control of wildlife diseases, upgrading facilities for animal breeding units, and providing funding for epidemiological research focused on wildlife species and pathogen control, etc. This proactive approach represents a stable solution, partially addressing the economic challenges in the enforcement of the law on management of zoonotic diseases.

Attracting human resources for wildlife disease management work

The Government should study and develop policies to establish career orientation programs for wildlife disease management-related occupations which now receive relatively low recognition in society.

Worthy of note, these programs should be jointly organized by the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in coordination with wildlife research organizations and facilities. Besides, to ensure diverse and practical perspectives, these programs should involve domestic and foreign experts who are specialized in relevant fields. Their insights will enhance the reliability of information shared during the career orientation process. Additionally, the most effective venues for these programs would be education institutions so as to target students who are keen to seek information serving their occupational choices.

Building communication channels on zoonotic disease prevention and control

To enhance the dissemination of information and raise awareness of prevention of transmission of zoonotic diseases, it is necessary to focus on developing specialized communication channels. These channels should synthesize valuable insights and practical strategies for managing infectious diseases originating from wildlife. At the same time, the critical importance of wildlife protection should be emphasized through the application of the World Health Organization’s One Health approach – an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment.

Other communication activities that should also be considered include developing a Podcast channel, synthesizing researches and scientific articles, organizing discussion forums, collaborating across sectors, both from inside and outside the industry. Ultimately, each individual would become a vital link in the chain, responding to global movements aimed at protecting wildlife and nature, and upholding the “green” values of humanity, protect the survival and health of wildlife and also contribute to our own well-being.

—

^{[1] Hong Ngoc, Infectious Disease Ecology: Natural and Unnatural History, Journal Forest and Environment Protection, 2020, https://baovemoitruong.org.vn/sinh-thai-hoc-benh-natural and unnatural history/.}

^{[2] Tuan Anh, Le Thoa, [Infographic] Identifying dangerous epidemics originating from wildlife, Health and Life Newspaper, 2023, https://suckhoedoisong.vn/infographic-diem-mat-cac-loai-benh-dich-nguy-hiem-bat-nguon-wild-animals-169230220194416288.htm.}

^{[3] Phuc Tran, Preventing Future Infectious Disease Outbreaks in Vietnam through changes in policy regulating the trade and consumption of wildlife Wild, WCS Vietnam, 2020, https://programs.wcs.org/vietnam/vi-vn/News/Media-Releases-VN/ID/13944/Preventing-future-outbreaks-of-infectious-diseases-in-Vietnam-Through changes in policies regulating the trade and consumption of animals wild-da.aspx.}

^{[4] Pham Duc Phuc, Infectious Diseases from Wildlife: Current Situation and Solutions, ThienNhien.Net, 2022, https://www.thiennhien.net/2022/01/28/benh-truyen-nhiem-tu-dong-vat-hoang-da-thuc-trang-va-giai-phap/.}

^{[5] Jason Rudall, The Natural Remedy for Zoonotic Diseases, Yearbook of International Environment Law, 2021, https://academic.oup.com/yielaw/article/31/1/3/6454391.}

^{[6] Tran Tran, Diseases transmitted from wild animals to humans: Who is at fault?, Electronic newspaper Vietnamese Law, 2022, https://baophapluat.vn/dich-benh-lay-tu-dong-vat-hoang-da-who-is-at-fault-post449757.html.}

^{[7] Tran Hoang Kim, Climate change and its impacts on human health, Trang Electronic information of Lang Son Provincial Department of Health, 2021.}

^{[8] Hong Phuc, Warning of negative impacts from commercial wildlife farming, Ethnic and Development Newspaper, 2021, https://baodantoc.vn/canh-bao-tac-dong-tieu-cuc-tu-gay-nuoi-thuong-mai-dong-vat-hoang-da-1615370554653.htm.}

^{[9] Rebecca Lipman, Zoonotic diseases: Using environmental law to reduce the odds of a future epidemic, 2015, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24789372?read- now=1&seq=17#page_scan_tab_contents.}

Source: Vietnam Law Magazine