In ‘Holistic and Leadership Approaches to International Regulation: Confronting Nature Conservation and Developmental Challenges’, Stuart Harrop applies my proposals regarding infectious zoonotic disease regulation to nature conservation more broadly.Footnote 1 Harrop correctly highlights that ‘health’ encompasses issues such as ‘food and water security, food safety, poverty and lack of access to fundamental natural resources’.Footnote 2 As an advocate of adopting a ‘One Health’ approachFootnote 3 to the task of resolving wicked problems,Footnote 4 I share this perspective. In fact, I began with the same broad perspective, but ultimately narrowed my focus in a pragmatic attempt to foster concrete action on environmental degradation.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)Footnote 5 is widely regarded as the most appropriate candidate for global leadership on this issue. The fact that it has been unable to move to hard targets is puzzling. What explains the lack of political will in the face of mounting evidence, including lived experiences, of the dire consequences of human-induced environmental degradation? One possible explanation is that conservation advocates, and I among them, have placed unrealistic expectations on these multilateral environmental instruments to affect change because we have mistakenly assumed that the need to preserve resiliency in the natural environment is recognized as a foundational principle.Footnote 6 Whatever the cause of the chasm between aspiration and action, the consequence is that, in my view, it is reckless to continue to wait for soft targets to be translated into hard targets under the banner of environmental conservation.
Reframing environmental degradation as a health issue, however, shows promise for generating the necessary political will to produce concrete action. One needs only to look to the global response to H1N1 and SARS, as discussed in ‘The Prevention Imperative’,Footnote 7 to see real examples of states moving beyond political differences towards effective, coordinated action. While I endorse Harrop’s call for the emergence of effective global leadership in nature conservation under a health banner and support efforts to promote its development, I suspect that local and sector-based initiatives will deliver concrete action more quickly. Many examples suggest that health information can move to even the most remote places to influence and change individual human behaviour in a way that has not been replicated with environmental information.Footnote 8 The need to safeguard human health unquestionably has foundational characteristics. Health impacts are perceived as having individual consequences that demand immediate redress. Rightly or wrongly, environmental impacts do not elicit the same response. Whether at the global or local level, human health may ultimately prove to be the most effective leverage in addressing environmental degradation.