# Will the COVID-19 crisis trigger a One Health coming-of-age?

Michel de Garine-Wichatitsky, Aurélie Binot, Serge Morand, Richard Kock, François Roger, Bruce Wilcox, Alexandre Caron

► To cite this version:

Michel de Garine-Wichatitsky, Aurélie Binot, Serge Morand, Richard Kock, François Roger, et al. Will the COVID-19 crisis trigger a One Health coming-of-age?. Lancet Planetary Health, 2020, 4 (9), pp.e377-e378. 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30179-0. hal-03101483

HAL Id: hal-03101483

https://hal.science/hal-03101483

Submitted on 7 Jan 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Will the COVID-19 crisis trigger a One Health coming-of-age?

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

CrossMark

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues across the globe, leaving governments and public health services in shock and disarray, calls have been made for the need to adopt One Health approaches to address the failure to predict and halt the emergence of COVID-19.¹ The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is widely suggested to have originated in Asia from a bat reservoir, possibly also involving other animal bridge species. As such, the focus of One Health on the human-animal-environment interface appears particularly compelling.² We concur, however, we warn that conceptual and institutional ambiguities that preclude the practical implementation and evaluation of One Health remain to be resolved.³,⁴

One Health was initially adopted by major health agencies more than a decade ago to promote inter-disciplinary collaborations among biomedical scholars and practitioners, and then progressively with workers in the environmental and social sciences, with the aim of establishing a more society-wide responsibility for the health of humans and the whole planetary ecosystem. One Health is embedded within the concept of EcoHealth, which further extends the scope to complex human-environment systems.⁵ This broader concept of health in social-ecological systems gained momentum, adopting a transdisciplinary action-research posture, and converged with sustainability sciences. Social-ecological systems uniquely formalised and explicitly defined resilience as a property of complex adaptive systems, the theoretical and practical validity of which is now supported by hundreds of case examples of diverse social-ecological systems.³ However, the word resilience is often used in a health context without a clear reference to this dimension of social-ecological systems, or any other explicit definition. The term resilience is especially confusing in the fields of public and animal health, in which resilience has several different meanings.⁶ Use of the term resilience in an environmental health systems context should be accompanied by a clear specification of whether or not its intended meaning is consistent with the social-ecological systems frame-work. Overcoming the fundamental ambiguities in the framing of One Health—ie, whether it addresses the resilience of social-ecological systems or the health of humans, animals, and the bio-physical environment in

the context of social-ecological systems—is essential to overcoming a number of challenges to its practical implementation as a transdisciplinary concept.³,⁷

Without more explicit framing as complex systems, the ambitions of One Health are likely to fail most of the time at the implementation phase due to functional mismatches between the scale of management and the scale of the processes being managed.⁸ Public health and veterinary services are not usually organised or equipped to operate according to how ecosystems are hierarchically organised.⁶ These scale mismatches between the ecological and social changes that drive disease emergence and spread, and the scale at which epidemiological surveillance and effective health and nature management occur, preclude the necessary adaptive governance of linked social-ecological systems.⁸ Similar causal mismatches are also associated with an inadequate response, whereby the proximal responses to sanitary crises (eg, emergency responses to COVID-19) do not address their distal causes, which are often rooted at higher levels within social-ecological systems (eg, environmental and social injustices driving biodiversity overexploitation and extinction).⁹

In the era to follow the emergence of COVID-19, policymakers, funders, and the general public will require that health-environment system risk management goes beyond routine measures. One Health can meet this demand provided its ambiguities are resolved. At a local level, where direct interactions between humans, livestock, wildlife, and other biodiversity components occur, One Health implementation necessitates a transdisciplinary and cross-sectorial collaboration with local communities and stakeholders, to understand and mitigate environmental and epidemiological risks. National agencies in public health, veterinary medicine, and environmental services are typically centralised and organised in siloes, which impedes the integration required to enable efficient and inclusive engagement and collaboration among stakeholders. One Health governance should adopt appropriate participatory processes to include, at a minimum, communities, non-governmental organisations, and other public or private entities for monitoring and management from the bottom up, locally to nationally. At the regional and international levels, One Health as a policy tool
is hindered by the same framing ambiguities, and
is structurally imbalanced. The challenges in the
human and animal health sectors are legitimately
and efficiently represented within the tripartite WHO-
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)-Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) coalition, which
are the UN agencies that currently lead One Health.
But wildlife and the environment are neglected,¹⁰
and the framing of One Health as a complex human-
environment system is absent. We suggest that the
UN Environment Program (UNEP), which hosts the
secretariats of several international environmental
conventions, such as the Convention on Biological
Diversity, should be included in the One Health coalition
with WHO, OIE, and FAO. Through its mandate on
international environmental governance, UNEP could
facilitate the much-needed articulation of health
challenges with the Sustainable Development Goals,³
anchoring the One Health approach within a wider
initiave to achieve a healthy planet for all.

We declare no competing interests. This work was done in the framework of the research platforms Production and Conservation in Partnership and Management of Emerging Risks in Southeast Asia.

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

*Michel de Garine-Wichatitsky, Aurélie Binot, Serge Morand, Richard Kock, François Roger, Bruce A Wilcox, Alexandre Caron degarine@cirad.fr

Unit Animals Health Territories Risk Ecosystems, French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development, National Institute for Research in Agriculture, Food and Environnement, University of Montpellier, 34398 Montpellier, France (MdG-W, AB, SM, FR, AC); Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand (MdG-W, SM); Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK (RK); Faculdade de Veterinária, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique (AC); Global Health Group International, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Institute for Health Development, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand (BAW); and Institut Ecologie et Environnement, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France (SM)

1 Amuasi JH, Walzer C, Heymann D, et al. Calling for a COVID-19 One Health Research Coalition. *Lancet* 2020; **395**: 1543-44.

2 Kock RA, Karesh WB, Veas F, et al. 2019-nCoV in context: lessons learned? *Lancet Planet Health* 2020; **4**: e87-88.

3 Wilcox BA, Aguirre AA, De Paula N, Siriaroonrat B, Echaubard P. Operationalizing One Health employing socio-ecological systems theory: lessons from the Greater Mekong Sub-region. *Front Public Health* 2019; **7**: 85.

4 Assmuth T, Chen X, Degeling C, et al. Integrative concepts and practices of health in transdisciplinary social ecology. *Socio Ecol Pract Res* 2020; **2**: 71-90.

5 Zinsstag J, Waltner-Toews D, Tanner M. Theoretical issues of One Health. In: Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Waltner-Toews D, Whittaker M, Tanner M, eds. One Health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches. Wallingford: Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International, 2015: 16-25.

6 Morand S, Lajaunie C. Landscape dynamics and the control of infectious diseases: the question of integrating health into coviability. In: Barrière O, Behnassi M, David G, et al. Coviability of social and ecological systems: reconnecting mankind to the biosphere in an era of global change. New York, NY: Springer, 2019: 61-76.

7 Antoine-Moussiaux N, Janssens de Bisthoven L, Leyens S, et al. The good, the bad and the ugly: framing debates on nature in a One Health community. *Sustain Sci* 2019; **14**: 1729-38.

8 Cumming GS, Cumming DHM, Redman C. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences and solutions. *Ecol Soc* 2006; **11**: 14-34.

9 Wallace RG, Bergmann L, Kock R, et al. The dawn of structural One Health: a new science tracking disease emergence along circuits of capital. *Soc Sci Med* 2015; **129**: 68-77.

10 Essack SY. Environment: the neglected component of the One Health triad. *Lancet Planet Health* 2018; **2**: e238-39.