Inclusive and fair One Health through the integration of nonhuman interests

One Health – the view that human, animal, and environmental health are interdependent – has gained significant traction over recent decades. The most widely endorsed definition of One Health, developed by the One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), is characterised by several key features, including: i) the aim to sustainably balance and optimise human, animal, and environmental health; ii) the inclusion of diverse disciplines, sectors, and perspectives; and iii) a commitment to respecting the intrinsic value of all living beings in the ecosystem to achieve a socio-ecological equilibrium. By acknowledging the intrinsic value of all living entities, OHHLEP’s definition explicitly endorses biocentrism – the view that all living beings matter for their own sake. Furthermore, inclusion is a central principle of One Health, understood as the integration of actors from different disciplines, sectors, and communities. Yet despite this emphasis, the active inclusion and involvement of two highly relevant groups – animals and nature – currently remain largely ignored in One Health decision-making and practice. There is a significant gap in the literature concerning how animals’ and nature’s interests and needs could be meaningfully incorporated into One Health decision-making to both optimise health outcomes and respect their intrinsic value. In this paper, I argue that moving beyond an anthropocentric interpretation of One Health requires the inclusion of animals and nature in One Health approaches. I present three justifications for this claim: the affectedness of animals and nature by One Health measures, considerations of procedural justice, and biocentrism. Subsequently, I discuss three relevant models developed in fields beyond the One Health domain and demonstrate how they can be fruitfully applied to this context. These include: i) animal agency; ii) inclusion through human diversity; and iii) assigning a human to speak on behalf of animals and nature in One Health decision-making. I outline the advantages and limits of each proposal and suggest that the third option – representation of animals and nature by a human person – is likely the fairest and most promising approach.