By Yibai, Jointing.Media, in Shanghai , 2026-01-26

Five cases of Nipah virus infection have been confirmed in India’s West Bengal state, with one nurse in critical condition. Nearly 100 individuals have been instructed to self-isolate at home, and the central government has dispatched a response team.

This represents a recurring threat facing India. The nation’s first outbreak occurred in the same region in 2001. The virus carries a fatality rate of 40% to 75%, with an incubation period extending up to 45 days. Currently, no specific vaccine or treatment exists. Transmission occurs via droplets and contact, with all Indian outbreaks recording human-to-human transmission, placing healthcare workers at high risk.

Fruit bats (Pteropodidae) serve as the virus’s natural reservoir. Human infection primarily stems from consuming raw date palm sap contaminated by bat saliva, urine, or faeces.

Scientific research indicates that deforestation, environmental degradation and the loss of wildlife habitats are systematically increasing the frequency of outbreaks of zoonotic diseases such as Nipah virus. This outbreak is not an isolated incident, but one of a chain reaction triggered by human activities eroding natural boundaries and disrupting ecological balance.

Human-induced disruption of ecosystems is heightening the risk of spillover from emerging infectious diseases. Viruses primarily spill over from animals to humans through two interconnected pathways:

First, altering ecological boundaries. Activities such as deforestation and agricultural expansion fragment natural habitats, creating “ecological interface zones” between wildlife and human communities. Research confirms these areas are hotspots for disease spillover. A 2024 Frontiers in Public Health study on Ebola indicated that viral spillover events cluster at the margins of host species’ ranges, where they intersect extensively with human agricultural land. In India and Bangladesh, fruit bats displaced by habitat loss enter human plantations, where contaminated food sources—such as date palm sap—become transmission vectors.

Secondly, biodiversity decline. Large-scale land consolidation and monoculture farming simplify ecosystems. A 43-year study in Shaanxi, China (published in Nature Ecology & Evolution) revealed that land consolidation reduced local rodent diversity by 53%, yet elevated the proportion of black-striped field mice—the primary host of hantaviruses—to over 80%, significantly increasing human infection risks. This validates the ‘dilution effect’: intact ecosystems hinder pathogen transmission; when biodiversity is lost and specific hosts become dominant species, pathogens spread more readily.

This pattern holds true across diverse global regions. In Africa, Ebola virus outbreaks are directly linked to changes in bat distribution and behaviour caused by tropical rainforest development. In Southeast Asia and other global regions, wildlife hunting and trade are key drivers. A 2024 study identified ‘spillover hotspots’ in Central America, Southeast Asia, southern China, and Africa’s Congo Basin, all characterised by intensive wildlife harvesting and trade networks that heighten human exposure to novel viruses.

Regarding the potential release of ancient pathogens from melting glaciers and permafrost, scientific consensus holds this to be a theoretical risk with low probability of immediate threat, remaining an uncertain long-term issue. While scientists have revived viruses tens of thousands of years old from permafrost, these currently infect only amoebae. The 2016 anthrax outbreak in Siberia caused by thawing permafrost demonstrated the threat from known bacterial pathogens. For unknown ancient viruses, infecting humans would require overcoming immense biological barriers. Thus, compared to this distant uncertainty, the ongoing viral spillover driven by deforestation, land-use change, and wildlife trade represents a far more pressing threat.

Scientific evidence indicates that every advance in human land use conversion—from tropical rainforests to farmland—risks opening a potential Pandora’s box of pathogens. The frontline defence against future pandemics lies in how we treat every forest and wetland.

The international community has recognised the link between ecological health and pandemics, establishing corresponding frameworks. However, tangible obstacles exist between commitment and on-the-ground implementation, stemming from funding constraints, sectoral divisions, and competing interests.

The 2025 WHO Pandemic Agreement and the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework constitute twin pillars of global health governance. The former aims to prevent pandemics, centred on establishing a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system; the latter seeks to reduce disease spillover risks by protecting ecosystems.

Yet potential institutional friction exists between them. The crux lies in the ‘dual obligations’ issue: the Convention on Biological Diversity mandates benefit-sharing for genetic resources (including pathogen sequences), while the PABS system under the Pandemic Agreement also requires sharing of health products. For R&D enterprises, this could mean a single pathogen triggers dual international obligations, increasing complexity and potentially dampening incentives for data sharing.

A deeper issue lies in differing perspectives. Global health action remains focused on ‘monitor-respond’, with environmental factors often treated as background. As one negotiation observer noted: ‘During the Pandemic Agreement talks, specific provisions addressing root drivers like deforestation were significantly watered down.’ This creates an ‘implementation gap’ between ecological conservation goals and epidemic prevention actions.

While the ‘One Health’ concept is widely accepted, grassroots implementation faces considerable challenges. Take the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as an example: the region established a ‘One Health’ coordination mechanism as early as 2016. Yet practical dilemmas remain evident: implementation relies on external funding and technical assistance, lacking sustainable domestic budgets; administrative barriers and data gaps persist between health, agriculture, and environmental departments; and regional planning sees diminished impact at the local level. Research indicates that due to weak grassroots institutional capacity, scarcity of specialised personnel, and absence of localised operational guidelines, the coordination mechanism’s actual effectiveness has fallen short of expectations.

Some localised innovations offer micro-level solutions. The Qinghai case in China, for instance, centres on integrating ecological compensation, livestock insurance, and animal disease prevention through policy, creating a localised cycle. Yet scaling this model faces constraints. Its success relies on robust grassroots governance capacity, requires green financial instruments for support, and primarily targets known endemic animal diseases. Its efficacy remains limited in guarding against novel, unknown pathogens spilling over from wildlife to humans.

A global defence line is being constructed, yet its robustness hinges on precision of implementation. While we possess more robust monitoring networks and shared objectives, the enduring challenge remains how to sustainably channel funding, data and policy into the fragile intersection of ecology and public health.

中文原文

Translated by DeepL

Edited by Moon

Related:

JM Review | Geological Crisis Triggered by Groundwater Over-Extraction

China Finally Enacts National Legislation to Protect Ancient Trees

Billionaires Focusing on Greenland Island