President Emmanuel Macron has convened a high-level gathering of ministers from approximately 20 nations in Lyon to address the urgent intersection of human, animal, and environmental health. The “One Health” summit marks a strategic pivot for the One Planet Summit series, expanding its scope beyond the purely environmental focus that has defined the initiative since its inception in 2017.
This ninth iteration of the summit represents more than a thematic shift; it is an attempt to institutionalize a nouvelle diplomatie—a new diplomacy—that recognizes the inextricable link between ecological degradation and the emergence of zoonotic diseases. By bringing together health ministers and environmental policymakers, France is attempting to bridge the systemic gaps that often leave the global community vulnerable to pandemics.
The “One Health” approach is not a new scientific concept, but its application as a primary tool of international diplomacy is a relatively recent development. The goal is to move from reactive crisis management to a proactive, integrated surveillance system that monitors health risks across species boundaries before they reach human populations.
Redefining the Scope of Global Diplomacy
For years, the One Planet Summits focused on the financial and political mechanisms required to combat climate change and protect biodiversity. Still, the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a realization among policymakers: you cannot solve a public health crisis without addressing the environmental conditions that create it. This shift toward a “One Health” framework suggests that future diplomatic efforts will likely treat deforestation, wildlife trade, and industrial farming not just as environmental issues, but as matters of national and global security.
The presence of ministers from two dozen countries in Lyon underscores the desire for a coordinated international response. However, the challenge lies in translating this conceptual framework into binding policy. Traditional diplomacy is often siloed—health ministries handle hospitals and vaccines, while environment ministries handle forests and emissions. A “One Health” diplomacy requires these disparate entities to share budgets, data, and authority.
Experts analyzing the event suggest that the success of this summit will be measured by whether it produces a concrete mechanism for inter-ministerial cooperation or remains a symbolic gesture of solidarity. The transition from “environmental diplomacy” to “planetary health diplomacy” requires a fundamental restructuring of how states interact regarding biological risks.
The Expert Perspective: Geopolitics and Epidemiology
The complexities of this new diplomatic direction are being scrutinized by a diverse group of specialists, ranging from career diplomats to frontline medical researchers. The debate centers on whether the “One Health” approach can actually overcome the sovereign interests of individual nations, which often hesitate to share sensitive health data during the early stages of an outbreak.
Among those weighing in on the strategic implications is Michel Duclos, a former ambassador and France’s former representative to the United Nations. As a geopolitical special advisor at the Institut Montaigne and author of Diplomatie française, Duclos brings a perspective on how France seeks to project “soft power” through leadership on global public goods. For Duclos, the summit is an exercise in French diplomatic leadership, attempting to position Paris as the coordinator of a global health architecture.
From a clinical and systemic viewpoint, Anne Sénéquier, a physician and researcher who co-directs the Global Health Observatory at the Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques (IRIS), emphasizes the need for a structural shift. The medical community argues that the “One Health” approach must be grounded in rigorous data and a genuine understanding of how pathogens jump from animals to humans, rather than being used as a mere diplomatic slogan.
Adding a layer of scientific urgency is Antoine Flahault, an epidemiologist and professor of global health at the Paris Cité-hôpital Bichat-Inserm. Flahault’s work focuses on the practical application of health surveillance. From an epidemiological standpoint, the “new diplomacy” must result in tangible investments in surveillance systems in the Global South, ensuring that the burden of monitoring does not fall solely on the countries most at risk while the benefits of the data are hoarded by wealthier nations.
The Integrated Health Framework
To understand why this shift is occurring now, it is helpful to look at the primary drivers of the “One Health” agenda. The following table outlines the core pillars of this approach compared to traditional health diplomacy.
| Feature | Traditional Health Diplomacy | One Health Diplomacy |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Focus | Human disease and vaccine distribution | Interconnection of humans, animals, and ecosystems |
| Key Actors | Health Ministers, WHO, Pharma | Health, Agriculture, and Environment Ministers |
| Strategy | Reactive (treating the outbreak) | Preventative (stopping the spillover) |
| Goal | Patient recovery and containment | Ecological balance and systemic resilience |
Potential Obstacles to Implementation
Despite the optimistic tone of the summit, several hurdles remain. First is the issue of funding. Integrating health and environmental policies requires a massive reallocation of resources. In many countries, the budget for “wildlife health” is negligible compared to the budget for “human hospitals,” making the integrated approach a difficult sell to treasuries.
Second is the tension between economic development and health security. Many of the regions where zoonotic spillover is most likely to occur are also regions where economic growth depends on expanding agriculture and logging. Asking these nations to limit land utilize for the sake of “global health security” often requires financial compensation from the Global North—a point of contention in almost every One Planet Summit since 2017.
Finally, there is the challenge of data transparency. A “One Health” diplomacy relies on the rapid sharing of information about animal die-offs or unusual clusters of illness in rural areas. However, nations often fear that such transparency will lead to immediate trade sanctions or travel bans, creating a perverse incentive to hide early warning signs.
Looking Ahead: From Lyon to Global Policy
The Lyon summit is a critical stepping stone toward a more holistic form of international governance. By framing health as a planetary issue, France and its partners are attempting to move the needle toward a world where the health of a forest in the Amazon or a market in Southeast Asia is viewed as directly linked to the health of a citizen in Paris or New York.
The immediate next step for the participants will be the development of a shared roadmap for “One Health” implementation, which is expected to be integrated into broader World Health Organization (WHO) and World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) frameworks. The international community will be watching for specific commitments regarding the funding of cross-species surveillance and the creation of a permanent inter-ministerial task force.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute medical or public health advice.
The outcome of these discussions will likely be reviewed at the next scheduled global health forum, where the effectiveness of these new diplomatic channels will be put to the test. We invite you to share your thoughts on whether this integrated approach can truly prevent the next pandemic in the comments below.
