Think globally to act locally. Methodological guide 'One Health'.

The guide is directly useful to CLS coordinators, PAT facilitators, health-environment technicians, local elected officials, and heads of care structures wishing to operationalise the 'One Health' approach in their projects. It provides a stable conceptual framework, examples of territorial actions, and a ready-to-use analysis grid to review or design projects with co-benefits for human/animal/plant/ecosystem health. The annexes quickly direct to the right partners and mechanisms to structure local intersectoral governance.

Source: 📒 Think globally to act locally. Methodological guide 'One Health'.

  📜🔗LINK

Number of pages: 52 pages

1. Analytical summary

Context, issues, and target audiences.

The guide is part of the international One Health dynamic, formalised by the Manhattan principles (2004) and the OHHLEP/WHO definition, and is implemented in France through the PNSE 4 and the PRSE. It starts from the observation of the close interdependence between human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health, and the increasing pressures exerted on ecosystems (pollution, loss of biodiversity, climate change) that impact human and animal health. The document targets local stakeholders (local authorities, EPCI, PNR, health centres, care networks, environmental organisations, agricultural actors), particularly those involved in structuring mechanisms (CLS, PAT, PCAET, PLUi, SCOT, CRTE, PTSM, CPTS, MSP). It highlights the need for concrete tools, a common culture, and shared evaluation frameworks to promote initiatives that are already aligned with the USS approach but are either not very visible or poorly connected. Narratives like that of Lucie, a nursery director, exemplify the shift from a health-environment approach focused on human exposure to a systemic project integrating biodiversity, economic circuits, agricultural practices, purchasing policies, and outdoor activities.

Methodological and operational contributions

The guide proposes a very operational structure in two main parts: (1) why and how to promote the One Health approach in a territory, by identifying conducive themes (food, zoonoses, planning, living environments, eco-responsible care, mental health) and existing institutional levers; (2) a series of cross-cutting tools to acculturate, equip, analyse, and evaluate projects. It provides specific examples of territorial actions by theme, with the expected co-benefits for different health areas, and practical advice on mapping stakeholders, linking initiatives, and sharing intersectoral data. A self-analysis grid titled 'One Health' and a dedicated chapter on evaluation help to structure a reflective posture, define objectives and indicators (process/results), and integrate One Health principles into governance as well as project outcomes. Finally, external resources (files, guides, toolkits, training, MOOCs, summer university) complement the document to support the capacity building of stakeholders.

2. Key points of the document 

1. Political and scientific legitimisation of the One Health approach (pp. 5–7, 35)

   The guide anchors the One Health approach in international references (Manhattan Principles, OHHLEP, WHO) and French public policies (PNSE4, PRSE), explicitly linking them to recent crises (COVID-19) and the social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. It proposes a shared definition of the four 'healths' (human, animal, plant, ecosystem) with recent Anses and academic references, useful for stabilising the vocabulary among partners (pp. 6–7, 47–48).

2. Operational themes conducive to One Health (pp. 15–21)

   Six areas of action are detailed: healthy and sustainable food, zoonoses, spatial planning, quality of living environments, eco-responsible care, well-being and mental health. For each theme, the guide clarifies the interdependence mechanisms between the four health domains, the territorial levers (PAT, CLS, PCAET, PTSM, CPTS, PLUi, etc.) and the expected co-benefits, with at least one very concrete example of local action (e.g. agroecological circuits for collective catering, tick programmes, combating invasive species, local pollutant reduction plans).

3. Territorial impulse strategies: actors, mechanisms, data (pp. 13–18, 37–41)

   The guide emphasises the construction of interdisciplinary and intersectoral cooperation upstream of projects, with practical recommendations for mapping actors (human health, veterinary, ecology, agriculture, environment, urban planning, education, social sector, economy) and relying on local authorities as governance pivots (municipalities, intermunicipalities, PETR, PNR). The annexes list potential actors (Annex 1) and describe the mobilisable mechanisms (Annex 2), allowing a local coordinator to quickly identify the right entry points.

4. Cross-cutting tools: acculturation, toolbox, reading grid (pp. 22–27, 43–48)

   The document compiles and comments on educational resources (infographics, comics, videos, files, webinars, training) to disseminate a One Health culture among diverse audiences (local authority agents, health professionals, educators, elected officials). It notably refers to the regional file Act BFC, the file "A tour of the One Health approach in health promotion... in 180 minutes (or almost)", and an online educational toolkit that is regularly updated. The project analysis grid (Annex 3) provides a structured framework to examine context, actors, effects on the 4 health areas, synergies, and uncertainties, with a "small filling guide" that aids in appropriation by non-specialist evaluation teams (p. 27, 43–48).

5. Chapter dedicated to the evaluation of One Health projects (p. 28–33)

   The guide offers a pedagogical clarification of the concepts of diagnosis, assessment, audit, and evaluation, and then outlines the evaluation criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, efficacy) in the One Health context. Using the example of Lucie's project, it illustrates how to formulate evaluative questions, choose indicators (quantitative and qualitative), and construct a feasible evaluation protocol, emphasising co-construction, the diversity of information sources, and alignment with steering decisions. ORS contacts are provided for methodological support on evaluation, which is rare in a guide of this type (p. 33).

3. Action points for local actors

1. Integrate One Health into existing frameworks (CLS, PAT, PCAET…) (p. 13–18, 37–41)

   For a CLS coordinator, the most direct use is to review the contract and its action plan in light of the six USS themes, then identify where to strengthen co-benefits with other schemes (PAT, PCAET, PLUi, SCOT). Specifically, this may involve creating an inter-scheme working group, rewriting some objectives in terms of co-benefits (e.g. sustainable food, active mobility, nature in the city) and explicitly including the USS approach in amendments or upcoming contractual cycles.

2. Map the stakeholders and strengthen intersectoral governance (pp. 13–15, 37–41, 47)

   Local authorities and territorial facilitators can use the diagrams and Annex 1 to build a detailed map of stakeholders by sector (health, social, environment, agriculture, urban planning, education, economy) and identify the 'absentees' from cooperation. A concrete action is to organise a sequence of mutual acquaintance (such as a local day) inspired by the formats described for the summer university or CNFPT webinars, with an explicit goal of co-constructing initial USS projects [?]. This mapping then serves as a basis for partnership agreements or governance clauses in existing schemes.

3. Use the USS analysis grid as a tool for systematic project review (pp. 27, 43–48)

   A health-environment service or a CPTS can decide that any new significant action (e.g. prevention programme, development project, care pathway) will be scrutinised using the One Health analysis framework in advance. The approach can be integrated into project or validation committees, with a dedicated 1.5-hour session where the sections 'Effects on the 4 healths' and 'Perspectives' are filled in, which brings forth avenues for strengthening or risks to anticipate. Ultimately, the framework becomes a shared reference for dialogue between partners, facilitating intersectoral compromises.

4. Strengthen the USS dimension of care and mental health practices (pp. 19–21)

   For MSP, CPTS, EHPAD or medico-social teams, the guide allows for structuring eco-responsible care approaches and the promotion of mental health rooted in nature (outdoor activities, animal mediation, agroecological gardens, nature prescriptions). An operational step is the implementation of a participatory environmental diagnosis of care structures (consumptions, waste, supplies, spatial organisation) and the inclusion of some USS actions in the health project or establishment project, in connection with CLS and PCAET.

5. Equipping the cultural adaptation of teams and elected officials (p. 22–26) - Training managers, HR services or resource centres can organise a modular awareness-raising programme based on the proposed corpus: WHO/INRAE infographics, "2 minutes to understand everything" clips, comics, GRAINE/Health Promotion webinars, "180 minutes" file. The practical use is to combine a short introductory sequence (video or comic) with a local practical workshop (applying the framework to an ongoing project), followed by the targeted dissemination of the documentary file for the referents. This allows for the creation of a core group of resource individuals capable of carrying the USS approach within their organisations.

4. Additional References

5. Cross-Analysis – Values of "Health Practices"

• Literacy: the document provides sourced definitions, simple diagrams, illustrative narratives (Lucie) and concrete examples, but the level of language remains expert and requires support for audiences with low health literacy (p. 5–10, 47–48).

• Empowerment: it shows how local actors (e.g. a nursery manager) can initiate and reconfigure a project, by broadening governance to families and producers, but the direct involvement of residents in the design is mainly suggested (p. 8–10, 13–15).

• Participation: the guide promotes co-construction approaches (USS day, shared governance, participatory science on ticks or invasive species) and provides examples where residents, associations and professionals co-produce diagnostics and responses (p. 9, 13–18, 16–17).

• Community health: it values territorial frameworks (CLS, PTSM, CPTS, PNR, social centres) and collective approaches focused on the living environment, social justice, and 'Buen Vivir', which clearly places the USS within a community health perspective (p. 11–13, 20–21, 35).

• Ethics: the issues of not reducing health to its solely biomedical dimension, taking into account social and ecological determinants, and respecting the balances of living systems are explicitly raised, but specific cultural or social biases are little analysed (p. 5–7, 12–13).

• Human rights: the guide relies on the WHO definition of health and addresses issues of social justice, access, territorial inequalities, and vulnerabilities, but does not explicitly mobilise the legal instruments of human rights (p. 5–6, 13, 20–21, 35).

• Intersectorality: cooperation between health, environment, agriculture, urban planning, education, economy, social issues, and research is a central axis, detailed with actors and mechanisms, making it a document very oriented towards intersectorality (p. 13–18, 22, 37–41).

• Partnership: models of collaboration are outlined (USS ARS project group, shared governance of zoonotic actions, intersectoral networks of eco-responsible care, summer university) but without formalisation such as governance matrices or partnership charters (p. 8–10, 16–21, 25, 34).

• Combating discrimination: the guide does not directly address specific discriminations (gender, origin, disability, sexual orientation) but incorporates values of non-judgment, consideration of vulnerabilities, and social justice, particularly through the promotion of mental health and 'better living together' (p. 11–13, 20–21).

Points of vigilance in animation

The document addresses environmental themes, mental health, social vulnerabilities, and ecological crises, but does not directly focus on a theme traditionally considered 'sensitive' in terms of gender-based and sexual violence, unaccompanied minors, disability, LGBTQI+, HIV/PrEP, or chemsex.

• Risks of emotional triggering: possible eco-emotions (eco-anxiety, feelings of helplessness) related to descriptions of ecological, health, and social crises, particularly for young people, professionals exposed to vulnerabilities, and those already concerned about the climate (p. 12–13).

• Measures to be anticipated: time for collective debriefing, highlighting positive examples, valuing local capacities for action, emotional safety rules at the beginning of the session (p. 13, 20–21).

6. Assessment of the reliability of the resource

• Scientific relevance

  The guide draws on a diverse bibliography: WHO, OHHLEP, Anses (2018, 2024), IPBES (2024), World Bank (2022), academic literature (Holling, Giraudoux, Collart Dutilleul et al.), public policy texts (PNSE4, ecological planning roadmap for the health system). Key concepts (resilience, robustness, health promotion, animal welfare, ecosystem health) are defined and sourced, and numerical data (cost of prevention vs pandemics) are referenced to recognised organisations (World Bank). The publication date (March 2026) and references up to 2025–2024 ensure satisfactory scientific currency.

• Operational relevance

  The document is strongly practice-oriented: detailed examples of territorial actions, practical advice (mapping of stakeholders, data sharing, use of existing devices), self-analysis grid, chapter on evaluation, ORS support contacts, and a catalogue of directly usable educational resources. Its transferability is high for French territories with CLS, PAT, PCAET, PTSM, CPTS, etc., but requires contextual adaptation for other regions or countries. Its complexity makes it more suitable for intermediate/expert professionals than for novice volunteers.

7. MCQ – 5 questions

Part 1 — Questions (without indicated answers)

Question 1 (pp. 6–7, 35)

In the 'One Health' approach, what is the particularity of the definition of human health retained in the guide?

a) It is limited to the absence of infectious disease

b) It integrates social, economic, and environmental determinants

c) It focuses exclusively on mental health

d) It only applies to rural populations

Question 2 (pp. 15–17)

The establishment of an agroecological supply chain for collective catering primarily illustrates:

a) A lever for reducing healthcare costs

b) An action focused solely on animal health

c) An action with co-benefits for human health, biodiversity, and the local economy

d) A device for controlling animal epidemics only

Question 3 (pp. 13–15, 37–41)

According to the guide, what is the recommended strategy to promote the USS approach in a territory?

a) Créer un nouveau dispositif spécifique USS en plus des dispositifs existants

b) Renforcer les liens et synergies entre dispositifs existants (CLS, PAT, PCAET, PLUi…)

c) Se concentrer uniquement sur les plans nationaux sans ancrage local

d) Déléguer l’ensemble de la démarche USS aux seules agences régionales de santé

Question 4 (pp. 27–28, 43–48)

La grille d’analyse de projet « Une seule santé » sert principalement à :

a) Évaluer uniquement le coût financier des projets

b) Contrôler la conformité réglementaire des actions

c) Réfléchir aux effets du projet sur les différentes santés et identifier des pistes d’amélioration

d) Remplacer le diagnostic territorial initial

Question 5 (pp. 28–33)

Dans la démarche d’évaluation présentée, quel est l’enjeu principal des indicateurs ?

a) Produire le plus grand nombre possible de données chiffrées

b) Rendre obligatoire un audit externe pour chaque projet

c) Objectiver les changements au regard des objectifs, en combinant processus et résultats

d) Se limiter aux indicateurs nationaux fournis par les ministères

Partie 2 — Correction commentée

Question 1 (pp. 6–7, 35)

✅ Réponse correcte : b) Elle intègre les déterminants sociaux, économiques et environnementaux

📝 Explication : Le guide reprend la définition OMS de la santé comme état de bien‑être complet, et précise que dans l’approche USS la santé humaine dépasse l’approche biomédicale pour intégrer déterminants sociaux, économiques et environnementaux. Source : p. 6–7, 35.

Question 2 (pp. 15–17)

✅ Correct answer: c) An action with co-benefits for human health, biodiversity, and the local economy

📝 Explanation: The example of an agroecological supply chain for collective catering is described as reducing exposure to pesticides, supporting the local economy, preserving soils and biodiversity, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Source: pp. 15–17.

Question 3 (pp. 13–15, 37–41)

✅ Correct answer: b) Strengthen the links and synergies between existing systems (CLS, PAT, PCAET, PLUi…)

📝 Explanation: The guide emphasises that it is not so much about creating new systems as it is about enriching the existing ones by integrating a comprehensive USS vision, particularly by articulating CLS, PAT, PCAET, PLUi, SCOT, CRTE, etc. Source: pp. 13–15, 37–41.

Question 4 (pp. 27–28, 43–48)

✅ Correct answer: c) Consider the project's effects on different health aspects and identify areas for improvement

📝 Explanation: The analysis grid is designed as a tool for collective reflection to examine the framework, actors, effects on the four health aspects, synergies and uncertainties, and to identify action points to enrich projects from a USS perspective. Source: pp. 27–28, 43–48.

Question 5 (pp. 28–33)

✅ Correct answer: c) Objectively assess changes in relation to the objectives, by combining processes and results

📝 Explanation: The chapter on evaluation emphasises the need to define indicators that are consistent with the objectives, allowing for the analysis of processes (how) and results/impacts (what), without limiting to raw figures or an audit logic. Source: pp. 28–33.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Who is the target audience for this guide? (p. 5–6, 11, 37–41)

   The guide is primarily aimed at local stakeholders involved in structural frameworks: local authorities (municipalities, intermunicipalities, regional natural parks, territorial coherence schemes), CLS coordinators, PAT facilitators, PCAET/PLUi/SCOT managers, health professionals (CPTS, MSP), state services, and environmental organisations. Pages: 5–6, 11, 37–41.

2. How can we determine if a local project is relevant to the 'One Health' approach? (p. 11, 15–21, 43–48)

   The guide suggests starting from conducive themes (food, zoonoses, planning, living environments, eco-responsible care, mental health) and using the analysis grid to check if the project impacts multiple health areas and engages different sectors. Pages: 11, 15–21, 43–48.

3. How can I identify the right partners in my area? (p. 13–15, 37–41)

   A mapping of stakeholders is recommended, based on the diagrams and Annex 1, which lists types of stakeholders by sector (health, environment, agriculture, urban planning, education, social, etc.). This mapping can be co-constructed in a workshop. Pages: 13–15, 37–41.

4. What tools are available to raise awareness among teams and elected officials about One Health? (p. 22–26)

   The guide lists infographics, comics, short videos, webinars, documentary files, and an online educational toolkit, selected for their scientific validity and accessibility. These resources cover general One Health concepts, food, antibiotic resistance, eco-responsibility in care, and air quality. Pages: 22–26.

5. How can we integrate One Health into the evaluation of our projects? (p. 27–33, 43–48)

   It proposes a step-by-step approach: to formulate clear objectives, define evaluative questions, choose process/outcome indicators, construct a realistic evaluation protocol, and regularly revisit the project with the analysis grid. Pages: 27–33, 43–48.

6. What concrete benefits can we expect for mental health? (p. 20–21)

   The guide details systems combining agroecological gardens, animal mediation, nature prescriptions, calming environments, intergenerational actions, and integration pathways, aimed at reducing isolation, stress, and anxiety-depressive disorders while strengthening the connection to living beings. Pages: 20–21.

7. Does the guide address the issue of costs and advocacy with decision-makers? (p. 11–13, 35)

   Yes, particularly drawing on a World Bank report that compares the costs of pandemic prevention via the USS approach to the costs of managing pandemics, and on the IPBES 'Nexus' report which documents the cost of inaction on biodiversity and climate. These elements serve as arguments to convince decision-makers of the medium to long-term economic benefits. Pages: 11–13, 35.

9. Rewriting in Easy-to-Read Language 

Title

'One Health' Guide

Think globally to act locally

1. Context and Issues (Easy-to-Read Language)

• The health of humans, animals, plants, and nature is interconnected.

• When the climate changes, pollution increases, and nature disappears, the health of all deteriorates.

• This guide helps regions to act for better health for all living beings.

• It is aimed at elected officials, health professionals, social actors, and environmental stakeholders.

• He takes concrete examples from food, animal diseases, cities, care, and mental health.

2. Operational contributions (FALC)

• The guide explains how to launch a 'One Health' project in a territory.

• It describes possible actions and their benefits for humans, animals, plants, and nature.

• It offers a simple framework to analyse a project using the 'One Health' approach.

• It explains how to monitor a project and measure its results with appropriate indicators.

• It provides links to videos, fact sheets, and training to better understand.

3. Key points (FALC)

• Point 1: The guide is based on recent official definitions from the WHO and experts.

• Point 2: It shows that some topics are easier to start with: food, zoonoses, planning, air quality, care, mental health.

• Point 3: It advises using existing frameworks (CLS, PAT, PCAET, PLUi, PTSM, CPTS) instead of creating new tools.

• Point 4: It provides a practical framework to consider the effects of a project on all health aspects.

• Point 5: It emphasises the importance of evaluation and proposes a method to monitor actions and improve them.

xwvx