Could the WHO Pandemics Agreement mark a turning point for wildlife?

(c) A Gekoski

Today’s adoption of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Pandemics Agreement at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, which has been under negotiation since December 2021, marks a historic step that has the potential to reshape the global approach to future health crises. 
 
It could also mark a positive change for our relationship with wildlife. 

Arguably its most significant contributions lie in the provisions relating to pandemic prevention and surveillance (Article 4), and the adoption of a One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (Article 5). These elements signal a shift in thinking away from the traditional reactive response to health crises, and towards addressing the root causes of pandemics, including those linked to the way we exploit wild animals and the ecosystems to which they belong.

Preventing pandemics at their source

The Dja rainforest © APGS

Article 4 underscores the critical need to prevent pandemics at their source rather than reacting to outbreaks after they occur.

For decades, pandemic preparedness has focused on surveillance, response mechanisms, and vaccine development. These are of course vital tools once a pathogen has emerged and begun to spread.

However, the focus on preventing pathogens from emerging in the first place, by identifying and mitigating the risk factors that have the potential to lead to pathogen emergence, represents a vital shift in emphasis.

Given that the majority of emerging infectious diseases in humans originate in wild animals, the risk factors that will need to be considered include the disruption and destruction of wild habitats, the trade in and use of wild animals, biosecurity issues along animal production and trade chains, and associated human-animal interactions.

The human, animal and environmental health connection

Equally crucial is Article 5 on One Health, which for the first time formally embeds the principle that human, animal, and environmental health are deeply interconnected into an international legally binding agreement and requires governments to adopt a cross-disciplinary approach to health.

This holistic framework recognises that pathogens with pandemic potential often emerge from the complex interface between people and animals, particularly where habitats and ecosystems are being degraded or where animals are maintained, transported and offered for sale in poor conditions.

By integrating the health of people, animals and the wider environment into pandemic prevention strategies, Article 5 lays the groundwork for more ecologically sustainable, equitable, and scientifically sound approaches to global health security.

A wildlife-first approach to health

A live animal market (c) Bernd Dittrich, Unsplash

Taken together, these two articles pave the way for a new approach to health, one that starts not in hospitals or laboratories, but in forests, markets, and farms.

They offer the international community a chance to act on what research has long been telling us: that addressing pandemics requires a focus not just on human health, but also on our relationship with the natural world. As identified in the United Nations’ Environment Programme report entitled Making Peace with Nature, understanding the value of nature and putting that value at the heart of decision-making means transforming our social and economic systems.

Wildlife exploitation has been identified as a leading cause of biodiversity loss, but it is also a major driver of emerging infectious diseases.

The collection, farming, holding and transportation of wild animals so they, or parts and products derived from them, can be traded, places those animals under enormous stress. It often brings them into unnaturally close proximity to other species that they wouldn’t encounter, and into proximity with people. These situations create the ideal circumstances for pathogens to emerge, proliferate, and potentially jump to other species, including humans.

In addition, the destruction and fragmentation of wildlife habitats increase contact between wildlife, livestock, and humans, further raising the risk of zoonotic (animal to human) spillover.

Addressing the health and welfare of wild animals is therefore not only a moral issue – it is also public health necessity. Encouraging governments to better regulate wildlife trade, enforce bans on high-risk markets, and invest in alternative livelihoods for communities dependent on these practices, will not only go some way to fulfilling global commitments to halt and reverse the decline in nature and help mitigate the impacts of climate change, it will also help prevent future human health crises.

How can change happen?

The need to prioritise wild animal welfare for public health has already been recognised by the global community through the adoption in October last year of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health; the robust implementation of the Action Plan will go a long way towards fulfilling the requirements of the Pandemics Agreement.

The Pandemics Agreement also calls for capacity building, the establishment of a coordinated finance mechanism, and equitable support for low- and middle-income countries, which are typically on the front lines of human-wildlife interactions and are therefore at greatest risk.

True global health security needs to be regarded as a shared responsibility, recognising that effective measures to prevent pathogen spillover at source by tackling high-risk activities are far more cost-effective than responding to pandemics once they have become established, as well as reducing the cost in human health and lives.

Born Free has been campaigning, alongside our partners in the Pandemics and Animal Welfare Coalition, for the incorporation of strong language on preventing pandemics at source through the adoption of One Health principles in the Pandemics Agreement throughout the protracted negotiations. While not perfect, the Agreement adopted by the World Health Assembly is a very good starting point, and the negotiators must be congratulated.  

Every effort must now be made to ensure countries sign, ratify and implement the Agreement without delay, with a strong focus on transforming our stewardship of the natural world for the sake of animals, ecosystems, and ultimately ourselves. If the Agreement fulfils its promise, it could represent a genuine turning point in how humanity relates to the other species which call our planet home.

However, it could be three years or more before the Agreement is ratified and comes into force; in the meantime, governments must be encouraged to be proactive and implement One Health strategies, including through transforming the way animals are treated, at the national level.