The pandemic year made the links between ecosystems, animals and human health impossible to ignore. It also revealed why environmental action must protect rights and livelihoods, not create new exclusions.
The environmental story of 2020 cannot be separated from the COVID-19 pandemic. A public-health emergency reshaped daily life around the world and brought a new urgency to questions about the relationship between people, animals and ecosystems. That relationship must be discussed with care. It is neither accurate nor ethical to reduce a complex pandemic to a simplistic story about wildlife or particular communities. The stronger lesson is systemic: human health, animal health and environmental health are deeply connected, and policies that treat them separately leave preventable risks unaddressed.
In July 2020, UNEP and the International Livestock Research Institute released Preventing the Next Pandemic, a report on zoonotic diseases and how to reduce the risk of future outbreaks. It argued for a One Health approach that brings public health, veterinary expertise and environmental knowledge together. The report identified environmental degradation, land-use change, wildlife exploitation, unsustainable agricultural practices and climate change among the pressures that can increase the risk of disease emergence. It called for prevention, surveillance, better governance and cross-sector cooperation rather than a response focused only on crisis management.
The State of the World’s Forests focused on forests, biodiversity and people. Its message was equally relevant: forests are not simply carbon stores or scenic backdrops. They are diverse living systems that support food, livelihoods, water cycles and the well-being of communities. The report emphasized that conservation and sustainable use must work together, and that effective governance requires respect for the rights and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It also warned that agricultural expansion and forest degradation continued to put forest biodiversity at risk.
Taken together, these reports point toward a more complete understanding of prevention. Healthy ecosystems can reduce risk, but “protecting nature” cannot mean evicting people from their lands or criminalizing livelihoods. Exclusionary conservation can damage trust, displace pressure elsewhere and undermine the very local institutions needed for monitoring and care. A One Health approach should therefore be rights-based. It should support safe and sustainable food systems, secure land tenure, locally appropriate animal health services, fair access to information and community participation in decisions that affect territory and livelihoods.
The pandemic also revealed the value of local resilience. When supply chains were interrupted, many communities relied more heavily on local food, mutual aid, seed saving, water systems and informal networks of care. These systems should not be romanticized; they often operate under severe pressure and unequal conditions. But they show why resilience cannot be delivered only through centralized infrastructure. It is also built through relationships, knowledge and the capacity of communities to organize. Environmental programs that strengthen local institutions are therefore contributing not only to conservation but also to health, dignity and preparedness.
For Amaterra, 2020 is a year to remember as an invitation to connect issues that are too often separated. A watershed project is also a health project when it protects water quality. A community seed bank is also a resilience project when it supports food security under climate stress. A mapping initiative is also a governance project when it helps residents participate in decisions about land and services. The question is not whether nature serves people or whether people should be kept away from nature. The question is how to sustain a relationship in which ecosystems, communities and public institutions can all remain healthy. One Health is most meaningful when it is lived as shared responsibility, not merely adopted as a policy phrase.
The lesson from 2020 is not that the natural world is dangerous and should be controlled. It is that environmental disruption carries human consequences, and that prevention is more humane and less costly than crisis response. Protecting ecosystems, improving livelihoods and strengthening public health can reinforce one another when policies are designed with people rather than imposed on them. The task is to build systems that can notice risk early, respond fairly and sustain the conditions for healthy lives across species and generations.
One Health also points toward a better relationship with expertise. Health workers, veterinarians, ecologists, farmers and community leaders do not always use the same language or work through the same institutions. Bringing them together takes time, translation and mutual respect. It is not enough to invite local representatives into a meeting once decisions are already made. Partnerships should begin with shared questions and support local capacity to observe, report and respond. Community knowledge can help identify changing conditions; public institutions can provide services, safeguards and resources that communities should not be expected to supply alone.