𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘈𝘉𝘐 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩, 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘵 shorturl.at/vxBIJ. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘱𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘚𝘋𝘎𝘴@𝘨𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭.𝘤𝘰𝘮.

**********
                                                                                                   
Animals matter for sustainable development, and sustainable development matters for animals. As the One Health framework reminds us, human, non-human, and environmental health are linked (Zinsstag, 2020), and many experts agree that every Sustainable Development Goal interacts with animals in some way (e.g. Keeling et al., 2019).

Yet animal welfare – that is, the mental and physical state of animals – remains neglected in sustainable development governance – that is, the goals and policies that governments are pursuing to promote sustainable development. For example, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development comprises 17 goals and 169 targets on topics ranging from hunger and poverty to peace and justice (United Nations, 2015). But while several of these targets focus on conservation of biodiversity, species, and habitats, none references animal welfare.

In June 2022, governments will convene for the UN Stockholm+50 Conference, which marks 50 years of international decision making on environmental issues. At this conference, governments have an opportunity to recognize the intrinsic value of animal welfare and the links between animal welfare and sustainable development, and to aspire to harm animals less and benefit them more as part of sustainable development governance. We call on governments to take these steps for the sake of human and non-human animals alike.

Animals matter for sustainable development. While its origins remain uncertain, COVID-19 has reminded us that industries like industrial animal agriculture and the wildlife trade not only harm and kill many animals per year but also contribute to global health and environmental threats that imperil us all (Roe et al., 2020).

For example, industrial animal agriculture keeps domesticated animals in cramped conditions and administers antibiotics to stimulate growth and suppress disease, contributing to infectious disease emergence and antibiotic resistance (Silbergeld et al., 2008; Roe et al., 2020). Animal agriculture is also a leading contributor to climate change, and it generally consumes much more land and water and produces much more waste and pollution than plant-based alternatives (Poore and Nemecek, 2018).

Similarly, the wildlife trade often keeps non-domesticated animals in high densities, either by capturing them from the wild or by raising them in captivity. This practice again contributes to infectious disease emergence (Karesh et al., 2005). Many methods of capturing animals also damage the environment; for instance, industrial fishing contributes to biodiversity loss, seabed damage, and plastic pollution in aquatic ecosystems, among other harms (Pusceddu et al., 2014; Thushari and Senevirathna, 2020).

Sustainable development matters for animals. Scientists increasingly accept that many animals are sentient (e.g. Low et al., 2012; Birch et al., 2021), and ethicists increasingly accept that sentient beings matter for their own sakes (e.g. Regan, 1995; Singer, 1995). It follows that humans should consider the interests of many animals when deciding how to treat them.

The stakes for animals in international environmental policy are high. Industrial animal agriculture and the wildlife trade not only harm and kill hundreds of billions of non-humans per year directly. They also harm and kill countless non-humans indirectly, by increasing disease outbreaks like bird flu and COVID-19, extreme weather events like fires and floods, and social and economic disruptions like lockdowns and supply-chain breakdowns that increase the risk of human violence and neglect towards non-humans.

More generally, environmental changes like climate change, ocean acidification, and air, water, and land pollution are not only reducing biodiversity but also harming and killing countless animals by making it impossible for them to breathe, eat, drink, or otherwise survive. Some mitigation and adaptation strategies – ranging from the intensification of meat production systems to the construction of cities and transportation systems without appropriate safeguards – risk harming and killing animals unnecessarily as well.

These links between human, non-human, and environmental health all matter for sustainable development governance. Humans have a responsibility to consider the interests of everyone impacted by human activity. In particular, humans should harm animals less and benefit them more as part of sustainable development governance, for instance by reducing exploitation of animals as part of pandemic and climate change mitigation efforts and by increasing assistance for animals as part of adaptation efforts (Sebo, 2022).

Fortunately, governments are making progress. For example, in 2020, several UN bodies established the One Health High Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) to provide guidance on ‘issues raised by the interface of human, animal and ecosystem health’ (FAO et al., 2021). And in 2022, Environment Ministers at the fifth UN Environment Assembly requested the UN Environment Programme to produce a report to improve our understanding of the nexus between animal welfare, the environment, and sustainable development (UNEA, 2022).

Fifty years after the adoption of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, governments have the opportunity to build on this progress. They can:

• Recognize the intrinsic value of animal welfare and the relationship between animal welfare and sustainable development in Stockholm+50 outcome documents and subsequent international sustainable development outcome documents.
• Strengthen and broaden the One Health activities of the OHHLEP and other relevant entities to better reflect the value of improving animal health and welfare not only for the sake of humans but also for the sake of the animals themselves, as well as consider animal health and welfare in the impact assessments that shape policy decisions.
• Support policies that benefit humans and non-humans alike, including informational policies that educate the public about human, animal, and environmental health and well-being; financial and regulatory policies that incentivize co-beneficial practices; and just transition policies that support vulnerable populations.

𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘳, 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭.

The authors declare no competing interests. The authors and signatories speak on their own behalf, and not on behalf of their affiliated institutions. The current list of signatories is available at shorturl.at/vxBIJ. This list will be periodically updated. Additional information and recommendations can be found at www.stockholm50.report/mainstreaming-animal-welfare and https://www.uncahp.org/.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬

• Birch, J., Burn, C., Schnell, A., Browning, H. and Crump, A. (2021) Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans. The London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
• FAO, OIE, UNEP and WHO (2021) Terms of Reference for the One Health High Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP). Available at: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/food-safety/call-for-experts/call-for-experts-onehealth-tor.pdf?sfvrsn=6e157c0f_38 (accessed 9 May 2022).
• Karesh, W.B., Cook, R.A., Bennett, E.L. and Newcomb, J. (2005) Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerging Infectious Diseases 11(7), 1000–1002.
• Keeling, L., Tunón, H., Olmos Antillón, G., Berg, C., Jones, M., et al. (2019) Animal welfare and the United Nations sustainable development goals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6, 336.
• Low, P., Panksepp, J., Reiss, D., Edelman, D., Van Swinderen, B. and Koch, C. (2012) The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. Available at: https://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf (accessed 9 May 2022).
• Poore, J., and Nemecek, T. (2018) Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360(6392), 987-992.
• Pusceddu, A., Bianchelli, S., Martín, J., Puig, P., Palanques, A., et al. (2014) Chronic and intensive bottom trawling impairs deep-sea biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111(24), 8861–8866.
• Regan, T. (1995) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, Berkeley.
• Roe, D., Dickman, A., Kock, R., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Rihoy, E. and ’t Sas-Rolfes, M. (2020) Beyond banning wildlife trade: COVID-19, conservation and development. World Development 136, 105121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105121
• Sebo, J. (2022) Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves: Why Animals Matter for Pandemics, Climate Change, and Other Catastrophes. Oxford University Press, New York.
• Silbergeld, E.K., Graham, J. and Price, L.B. (2008) Industrial food animal production, antimicrobial resistance, and human health. Annual Review of Public Health 29, 151–169.
• Singer, P. (1995) Animal Liberation. Pimlico, London.
• Thushari, G.G.N. and Senevirathna, J.D.M. (2020) Plastic pollution in the marine environment. Heliyon 6(8), 2405–8440.
• UNEA (2022) Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022. Animal welfare — environment — sustainable development nexus. UNEP/EA.5/Res.1. Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39795/ANIMAL%20WELFARE%e2%80%93ENVIRONMENT%e2%80%93SUSTAINABLE%20DEVELOPMENT%20NEXUS.%20English.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 10 May 2022)
• United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed 9 May 2022).
• Zinsstag, J. (2020) One Health – towards a more inclusive science. Rural 21: The International Journal for Rural Development 04/20, 4–7.

𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐬

• Jeff Sebo, Clinical Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Affiliated Professor of Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Philosophy, and Law, and Director of the Animal Studies M.A. Program, New York University
• Cleo Verkuijl, Research Fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)
• Maria José Hötzel, Professor, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis
• Ploy Achakulwisut, Scientist, SEI
• Mairon Bastos Lima, Research Fellow, SEI
• Jonathan Green, Senior Researcher, SEI

**********

𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮.

𝘕𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤. 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘺. 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘭.𝘢𝘵/𝘷𝘹𝘉𝘐𝘑. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘱𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘚𝘋𝘎𝘴@𝘨𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭.𝘤𝘰𝘮.