Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70204130

One Health: A perspective from wildlife and environmental health sectors

Jonathan M. Sleeman·Katherine L. D. Richgels·C. LeAnn White·C. Stephen
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Loss of biodiversity, habitat fragmentation and pollution, and subsequent degradation of natural environments threaten the range of ecosystem services that support all life on this planet. These changes, among others, are also driving the emergence of infectious diseases, with negative health outcomes for humans, animals, and our shared environment. Historically, interventions aimed at human and agricultural health issues did not always integrate wildlife or environmental health as part of the solution, which has resulted in unintended consequences. One Health recognises the interdependence of humans, animals and their shared environment, and provides a conceptual framework for developing interventions that optimise outcomes for human, animal and environmental health. However, there is a need to clearly articulate the core values, goals, and objectives of One Health for all relevant sectors in order to maximise synergies for communication, coordination, collaboration, and, ultimately, for joint actions on disease control and prevention. Application of systems and harm reduction approaches, focusing on the socio-economic and environmental determinants of health, and ensuring good governance and effective leadership will also maximise the opportunities to develop ‘win-win-win’ solutions to global health and environmental challenges. These solutions would help propel One Health forward to reach its full potential and truly optimise health outcomes for all.

Explore related subjects

Scientific and Technical ReviewArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jonathan M. Sleeman, Katherine L. D. Richgels, C. LeAnn White, C. Stephen. 2019. One Health: A perspective from wildlife and environmental health sectors. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.38.1.2944

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2024

New approaches to wildlife health

Recent environmental change and biodiversity loss have modified ecosystems, altering disease dynamics. For wildlife health, this trend has translated into increased potential for disease transmission and reduced capacity to overcome significant population-level impacts, which may place species at risk of extinction. Thus, current approaches to wildlife health focus not on the absence of disease but rather on the concept of health promotion. That is, wildlife populations will be more resilient to disease if they have the basic requirements for survival, as well as functioning ecosystems, within an enabling socio-economic environment. In this context, animal health programmes must adapt to design and implement wildlife health programmes that bridge knowledge gaps and fully integrate conservation goals. This article proposes new pathways and additions to the animal health management toolbox, including new approaches to surveillance and information management, partnerships and new wildlife health management practices. Solely because of risks to domesticated animals and human health, the traditional approach to disease surveillance in wild animals has now been replaced by a drive to recognise the intrinsic value of wildlife and the extended benefits of actively pursuing ecosystem health and associated life-sustaining ecosystem services. In this context, it is paramount to transition to holistic health programmes that embrace One Health as a pathway to set the health of all on equal footing.

Scientific and Technical Review↗
USGS2023

Wildlife health surveillance: Gaps, needs and opportunities

Disease emergence represent a global threat for public health, economy, and biological conservation and most of the emerging diseases have zoonotic origin from wildlife. To prevent their spread and to support the implementation of control measures, disease surveillance and reporting systems are needed, and due to globalisation, these activities should be carried at world level. To define the main gaps affecting the performances of wildlife health surveillance and reporting systems at word level, we analysed the Wildlife Disease Surveillance Survey submitted to all Members of World Organisation for Animal Health which inquire on structure and limits of surveillance and reporting systems. The response from 103 Members, covering all world areas, showed that 54.4% of them have a wildlife disease surveillance programme and 66% implemented a strategy to manage their spread. The lack of dedicated budget affected the possibility of outbreak investigations, sampling collection and diagnostic testing. Although most Members maintain records relating to wildlife mortality or morbidity events in centralised databases, data analyses and disease risk assessment are reported as main needs. Our evaluation of surveillance capacity showed an overall low level associated to great variability between Members not restricted to specific geographical area. A better recognition of the value of wildlife disease surveillance resulting in allocation of adequate resources by governments would make wildlife disease surveillance systems more functional. Moreover, the future comprehension of the influence of socio-economic, cultural and biodiversity aspects will be essential to increase better disease surveillance under One Health approach.

Scientific and Technical Review↗
USGS2019

Proposed attributes of national wildlife health programmes

Wildlife health is important for conservation, healthy ecosystems, sustainable development, and biosecurity. It presents unique challenges for national programme governance and delivery because wildlife health crosses not only jurisdictional responsibilities and authorities but also inherently spans multiple sectors of expertise. The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) encourages its Members to have wildlife disease monitoring and notification systems. Where national wildlife health surveillance programmes do exist, they vary in scope and size. Evidence-based guidance is lacking on the critical functions and roles needed to meet the OIE’s recommendations and other expectations of a national programme. A literature review and consultation with national wildlife health programme leaders identified five key attributes of national programmes including: (1) being knowledge and science based; (2) fostering cross-nation equivalence and harmonisation; (3) developing partnerships and national coordination; (4) providing leadership and administration of national efforts and (5) capacity development. Proposed core purposes include: (1) establishing and communication of the national wildlife health status; (2) leading national planning; (3) centralising information and expertise; (4) developing national networks leading to harmonisation and collaborations; (5) developing wildlife health workforces and (6) centralising administration and management of national programmes. A national wildlife health programme should aim to identify, effectively communicate, and manage the risk to or from a country’s wildlife populations. It should generate the appropriate knowledge required to improve the effectiveness of wildlife policies and systems, including identifyinhttp://www.oie.int/en/publications-and-documentation/scientific-and-technical-review-free-access/peer-reviewed-papers-for-the-plurithematic-review-2018/g and assessing emerging priorities, thus increasing warning for preparedness and preventive actions.

Scientific and Technical Review↗