When reinforcing the concept of “one health”, there is an urgent need to integrate the idea of “one biosecurity”, a view that recognizes the interdependence between human, animal, and environmental health.
By: Xuksa Kramcsak Muñoz, Journalist – Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB) – xuksa@ieb-chile.cl
Images:
Over the past few years, the concept of One Health has become a fundamental approach to addressing global health challenges, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Its proposal is clear: to integrate human, animal, and environmental health into a single vision that recognizes their interdependence. There is a consensus among institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) on the need for this approach. Despite its increasing adoption by governments and health agencies, several experts argue that One Health should incorporate biodiversity more explicitly by adopting a biosecurity approach.
That is what the concept of One Biosecurity, developed by an international team of scientists and published in the journal BioScience, suggests. Among the authors is the Chilean researcher Aníbal Pauchard Cortés, Director of the Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB) and academic of UdeC’s Faculty of Forestry Sciences, who argues that the incorporation of this approach is not only desirable, but urgent. “The concept of One Health is highly established and accepted among the scientific community, institutions, health agencies, and even the general population. What One Biosecurity provides is an extra dimension, an even deeper layer of integration. It includes not only animals and people, but also plants, microorganisms, pathogenic fungi, and the complex interactions that exist in ecosystems. It is a more holistic view that allows preserving these balances in the long term,” says Dr. Pauchard.
The article argues that although it is sometimes claimed that biosecurity is already part of One Health, evidence shows that its application has been limited, confined to contexts such as farm hygiene, zoonosis management, and laboratory safety. Instead, the concept proposes a broader structure that explicitly integrates the role of biological invasions into strategies for human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health. In addition, it proposes to leverage existing legal and regulatory instruments at both the global and national levels to maximize public health benefits.
One of the innovations of this approach is that it offers an implementation plan along the entire “biosecurity continuum”: from the use of open science tools to foresee risks beyond borders, to the management of international routes of people and goods, surveillance, and more coordinated work with social psychologists to improve regulatory compliance.
“One of the things that strikes me,” says Dr. Pauchard, “is that the concept of biological invasions is obvious in the academic field, but in health agencies it is not yet so obvious. The relationship between human health and biological invasions is addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than as a systemic process associated with globalization. And that is concerning because we realized, even as we wrote the IPBES report, that this disconnect persists. Many countries approach each invasive species separately, without understanding the phenomenon as a global process. We must make progress so that scientific evidence reaches decision-makers more strongly,” he stressed.
The relationship with invasive species
Biological invasions not only threaten native species or crops, but also have direct impacts on human health. Many exotic species act as vectors of diseases, hosts of pathogens, or even as sources of toxins, allergies, or poisons. SARS-CoV-2 itself, the article notes, can be analyzed as an example of biological invasion, given its international introduction, establishment from small foci, and subsequent global spread. And yet, pathogens are not usually included in invasive species lists or international biosecurity plans.
“We have to understand that an invasive species is a new component of the biodiversity of the place where it arrives. And that means it will have both positive and negative effects, altering ecosystem functions and affecting animals, plants, microorganisms, and ourselves. As ecologists, we are very concerned about how these species disrupt natural ecological relationships. And communicating that to society is one of the great challenges,” says Dr. Pauchard.
In this sense, One Biosecurity not only facilitates conceptual integration but also institutional coordination. Although international organizations have established general principles of collaboration under the umbrella of One Health, the actual governance remains fragmented; the ministries of health, agriculture, and environment usually work in isolation, which limits the effectiveness of health policies. “As a country, we are lacking. If we really want to make progress in prevention, biosecurity is the cheapest and most efficient way to do it. There are countries like New Zealand or Australia that have adopted biosecurity as a state policy, not just institutional or sectoral. They strengthened their borders and made strategic decisions. We need a state vision on biosecurity, not partial measures,” he notes.
Last modified: 20 de mayo de 2026
