Measures are interventions or activities that are already implemented in the project and can allow building a One Health component within its scope. They enable the operationalisation of the One Health integration in an optimal and relevant way. The framework identifies eight measures, including Education and Awareness, Policy Development, Capacity Development, Collaborative Platforms, Community Engagement, Information Sharing, Surveillance and Early Warning, and Research.
Refer to the provided definitions of each measure to ensure a correct understanding of its meaning in reference to the analysis framework
Review the project simply by looking for the gate entries and avoid jumping to quick conclusions regarding the adoption of the One Health approach
The measures proposed in the analysis framework are commonly found in biodiversity and conservation projects. The challenge here is to leverage them to allow the integration of the One Health approach in the project. The activity or component can be re-designed and re-planned working across sectors and adding the perspectives of different disciplines and actors. The transformed and integrated measure will increase its value and lead to bigger impacts at the biodiversity-health nexus.
Gate entries are thematic areas in which the project conducts activities or actions that have the potential to link into a OH approach. They represent real opportunities to integrate and transform project goals and One Health goals into a common goal. At the biodiversity-health nexus, the framework identifies five main key gate entries: Emerging Infectious Diseases and Zoonoses, Agriculture Production and Food Safety, Climate Change and Risk Reduction, Wildlife Trade and Consumption, and Biodiversity Conservation (including Nature-Based Solutions, Protected Areas, and Wildlife Management).
Refer to the provided definitions of gate entries to ensure a correct understanding of their meaning in reference to the analysis framework
There may be more than one gate entry to the biodiversity-health nexus in the same project. However, it is recommended to focus only on one gate entry to initiate the integration of the OH approach. The process requires efforts and resources to establish new partnerships, co-design new project components, and put in place measures and infrastructures to allow the communication, collaboration, coordination and capacity building across sectors and disciplines. A narrow focus can ease the process and increase the rate of success. Evidence generated in small-scale initiatives can eventually support their replication at a wider scale and inform the development of policies on the operationalisation of One Health in biodiversity-related projects.
The first step of the analysis is to assess if the project is applying one or more OH principles within its scope of work. Seven OH principles, adapted from the literature, are used in the framework (i.e., multisectoral, transdisciplinary, participation, prevention, decentralisation, evidence-based, multi-scalar). Not all principles in the framework have equal value, with the multisectoral principle considered an essential component in the proposed tool. The reason for this is that the basis of One Health is the collaboration among different sectors. The framework allows multisectoral collaborations at any level, for example where an MoU has been signed between ministries, or at community level through the joint effort of village health workers, animal health volunteers and rangers.
Refer to the provided definitions of each principle to ensure a correct understanding of its meaning in reference to the analysis framework
Review the project simply by looking for the mere application of principles and avoid jumping to quick conclusions regarding the adoption of the One Health approach
A quick scan of the project gives insight into the project’s current state. If the project already applies one or more OH principles, there are immediate opportunities to design and plan a One Health component within its scope of work. However, failure to apply even a single principle does not prevent the One Health approach to be implemented, nor does it imply that the framework analysis has to stop. The quick scan of the project will help to clarify what principles need to be explored and included to successfully implement a One Health approach.
Once formed, a review team will lead the analysis of the project and the potential integration of the One Health approach. It is key to initiate a discussion across sectors, identify opportunities of collaboration among stakeholders, and enable the co-design of One Health components that align with and push the project goals towards a holistic approach to the biodiversity-health nexus. The review team is multidisciplinary and should be made up of all the project owners, including institutional and development partners.
Multidisciplinary composition of the review team, including experts from different sectors (e.g., conservation, animal health, human health, education, social science)
Transdisciplinary composition of the review team, including experts from different levels of intervention and with different roles (e.g., researchers, policymakers, service providers, community members)
External assessors can greatly contribute and amplify the outcomes of the project analysis at the biodiversity-health nexus. They can guide the project team through the analysis process providing a fresh and independent perspective to the project analysis. External assessors should have some sort of experience in multisectoral collaborations and One Health to guide the review team in the project analysis and identification of opportunities to integrate a more holistic approach.
Country-level contexts are important to take into consideration as part of efforts to prevent illegal wildlife trafficking. It's really important to bring all the relevant stakeholders together to compare notes, share innovations, and ensure that sentencing guidelines are harmonised within and between jurisdictions. This can be bolstered by trainings and capacity building at the regional and international levels.
Having a knowledgeable judiciary can help establish uniform sentencing, and underscore the point that sentences for wildlife-related crimes seldom reflect the killing of a single animal, but rather must address the damage that wildlife trafficking can do to ecosystems, economies, and the rule of law.
This work has shown that it's important to bring all the relevant stakeholders together. The trainings as part of this solution have brought together law enforcement, prosecutors, and the judiciary, all of which are crucial in effective interdiction and enforcement.
Cooperation – Enhancing information sharing across jurisdictions
Multi-jurisdictional cooperation is a key element of wildlife protection and illegal wildlife trafficking. Strategies to reduce the pressurse of illegal and unsustainable trade on biodiversity - and enhance the benefits to wildlife conservation and human well-being that derive from trade at sustainable levels - require cooperation between conservations, law enforcement, customs, and private industry.
Cross-jurisdictional comparisons of wildlife trade trends, patterns, impacts and drivers to bolster the knowledge base on trade in wild animals and plants.
Policy-level work to inform, support and encourage action by governments and international bodies to adopt, implement and enforce effective policies
Effective information sharing through formal and informal networks can result in high-level conviction and seizure of assets.
Once a baseline level of cooperation is established, individual nations should implement legislation to enable wildlife crime to be treated as serious and organised crime according to the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), with penalties of four years or more in prison. Sentences should punish the offender to an extent that is justified by the circumstances, and be comparable with sentences applied to other serious crimes. Sentences should provide conditions that will help the offender to be rehabilitated, deter the offender and other persons from committing the same or a similar offence, and make clear that the community denounces the sort of conduct in which the offender was involved.
Information exchange between law enforcement agencies, FIUs, financial institutions, and civil society should be encouraged, to share knowledge, identify targets and patterns of behaviour, and more effectively mitigate wildlife crime risks.
Forensic accounting for wildlife trafficking interdiction
Photo courtesy of Harun Guclusoy/UNDP
Trainings
Wildlife crime is not purely a conservation issue, as its adverse impacts also threaten sustainable development, good governance, rule of law, and national security.
The aim of this building block is to identify the risks and vulnerabilities of money laundering and how it relates to wildlife crimes. Additionally, this building block endeavours to provide guidance and recommendations to law enforcement and related personnel to enhance the financial aspect of wildlife crime investigations.
Fraudulent paperwork can transform wildlife contraband into seemingly legitimate merchandise, enabling it to be openly traded and evade interdiction. There are many schemes that criminals use to create fraudulent wildlife paperwork, including false declarations of captive breeding, purchasing paperwork from corrupt officials, forging paperwork, re-using or altering old permits, etc. Forensic accounting is therefore an important building block
Transnational organised crime is found wherever money can be made from illicit dealings, and well-organised criminal groups have turned illegal exploitation of wildlife into a professional business with lucrative revenues. Criminal groups exploit gaps in legislation, law enforcement and the criminal justice system; and the generally weak legislation and inadequate law enforcement in wildlife protection has enabled wildlife criminal groups to flourish. Forensic accounting allows practitioners to close these gaps and bolster wildlife protection.
In order to capitalise on enhanced forensic accounting, complementary legislation should enable wildlife crime to be considered a predicate offence for money laundering, so that anti-money laundering tools can be used. Governments should review their criminal legislation to ensure that law enforcement agencies are fully authorised to follow the financial flows related to wildlife crime and to prosecute money laundering offences.
Domestic multi-agency cooperation should be common practice for wildlife crimes, involving police, customs, environmental authorities, Financial Investigation Units (FIUs), prosecutors, and other relevant domestic agencies for sharing information, intelligence, and conducting joint investigations where appropriate. Joint investigative teams which include FIUs are essential to target criminal networks and not just low-level offenders, and have long been used successfully to address other serious crime types.
