|

War and conflict challenge ecosystems unlike anything else, putting them under significant pressure. Armed conflict - like we keep seeing around the world - is closely linked to the deterioration of global health security, allowing infectious diseases to spread more rapidly and uncontrollably.

The Global Peace Index 2024 reveals that the average level of country peacefulness deteriorated by 0.56 per cent from the previous year. This makes the world a far less safe place now than it used to be, with the average level of in-country peacefulness dropping by 4.5 percent between 2008 and 2024. Following a similar negative trend, the economic impact of armed conflict on the global economy in 2023 amounted to losses of $907.5 billion.  

However, the impacts of war extend far beyond the global economy and disruptions of vital supply chains. In a world where harmful pathogens are increasingly accessible and can be easily released, the stakes for animal health security have never been higher.

A broadening threat landscape

The issue of conflict is deeply rooted in history but has a multidimensional, ever-changing nature. Far from being confined to traditional strategies, the arsenal of non-state groups and malicious actors is broad and diverse – and that includes biological threats.  A form of conflict that employs pathogens to cause harm, biological warfare has a long track record in history. Examples of their use date back as far as the Peloponnesian war but can also be found during the First World War.  

 A report published by the World Economic Forum has found that the perceived likelihood of future terrorist attacks is increasing. One growing concern is posed by the developments in biological sciences and the biotech industry. Over the last century, technology has emerged as the one force that’s fundamentally reshaping the modern conflict landscape, making it much easier for non-state groups to exercise and contest power.  

Emerging technologies such as drones, advanced communication systems and other tools supercharged by AI and quantum computing can indeed be used for illicit purposes, including planning and intelligence gathering. This technological breakthrough plays a big role in asymmetric warfare, where opposing forces differ significantly in size or military capability, helping non-state actors conduct operations and strategies that were once exclusively military domain.  

According to Emma Ross, who leads the health security workstream within the Global Health Programme at Chatham House, the key concern with biological weapons does not lie in their likelihood of use, but rather in their potential impact. “In today’s world, we are seeing a tangible increase in chemical risk due to global conflicts,” she explains. “When it comes to biological weapons, technology certainly amplifies their destructive potential. Still, the risk of their actual deployment remains more theoretical than immediate. Unlike chemical weapons -which can be more precisely targeted - biological threats are far more difficult to control.” She emphasises that this does not mean we should dismiss the danger. “We must be wary and prepared for the enormous and unparalleled consequences they could bring.” Pathogens can travel, mutate and spread in unpredictable ways, making them especially difficult to contain. This unpredictability, paired with the fact that biological weapons are relatively inexpensive and accessible, makes them uniquely dangerous. “If there’s something we should fear,” she concludes, “it’s their potential impact. Instead of focusing solely on probability, our attention should shift toward impact and unpredictability”.

How conflict and the use of biological threats intersect

Biological threats could be used in peaceful times by actors seeking to secure their interests. At the same time, they can be magnified by ongoing conflict. In war-torn regions, the vulnerability to biological risks is exponentially greater, as critical animal health infrastructures would normally collapse and surveillance systems falter. Dispute over land access, cultural polarisation and the control of scrambling resources are just some of the underlying factors that may cause tensions within societies and lead to the outbreak of a war.

Conflict creates fertile ground for the deliberate release of biological agents, making these threats more dangerous than ever. Lieutenant Colonel Julio Carvalho from the Portuguese Army Biological and Chemical Defense Laboratory believes that it is important to look at high-security settings during uncertain times. “When you have conflict”, he argues, “the safety of laboratories is one of the first things to be at stake. “When you have war in these settings, these facilities fall out of any jurisdiction of the state.  With conflict, the access or control of labs by State authorities could be impaired and makes the access of non-state actors or belligerents easier and without control or traceability”.

GlobalBiolabs.org has counted over 69 high-security biological research facilities in operation, under construction or planned around the world.  Interestingly, countries with operational BSL4 labs generally score well on governance and stability, but the bulk of planned BSL4 labs are in countries that score in the bottom half of these indexes, mainly due to ongoing conflict, government repression and political instability. WOAH has identified that many laboratories (not necessarily BSL4 labs) that handle and store high impact pathogens and diagnostic material are not sustainable because they are resource intensive and face challenges in maintaining critical infrastructure. Many laboratories built in low to middle income countries are highly engineered and therefore too expensive to operate. These challenges to sustainability undermine both the performance, safety and security of laboratories contributing to increased health and security risks.  “Paradoxically, more laboratories mean more opportunities to access them and accidentally or deliberately release diseases”, continues Carvalho. “Conflict has also the ability to deteriorate surveillance efforts, making the detection of threats more difficult.”

To address the issue, WOAH is working closely with its partners including Global Affairs Canada WTRP, through an initiative called BioPREVAIL aimed at finding solutions to improve the sustainability of laboratories in LMICs. For Trevor Smith, Co-Chair Biological Security Working Group at the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction diagnostic containment labs for high consequence pathogens can play a critical role in the global campaign to prevent, detect and respond to deliberate biological threats. “However, most containment labs were designed in and for high-resource countries, and current approaches are not well-suited for sustainable operation and maintenance in lower-resource settings,” he explains. “BioPREVAIL aims to change this, by pioneering a new type of secure, safe, and effective biocontainment facility that can more easily be maintained and sustained in low and middle-income countries.”

The challenges ahead: what could be done?

Today, 60% of human pathogens are of animal origin and 75% of emerging animal diseases can be transmitted to humans. Moreover, every global emergency declared in recent years has stemmed from the animal-human interface. The Covid pandemic has made the links between animal and human health even deeper, highlighting the need to continue to strengthen pandemic preparedness worldwide to safeguard the health of our ecosystems.

It is increasingly important to understand the animal health dimension of conflict, which needs to be an integral part of pandemic preparedness efforts. The animal health community plays a crucial role in managing the key national and international security threats that societies face - from biological threats to pandemics.  

However, this is a goal that requires collective effort and cannot be pursued in isolation. To effectively address the intersection of biological threats and conflict, it is essential to establish a collaboration across all actors - emergency agencies, the private sector and communities must work together to strengthen our response. Together, they should prioritise the dissemination of fact-based, verified information from trusted authorities to combat misinformation. Equally important is the development of clear legislation, protocols and guidelines on biological threats, as well as robust intelligence-sharing networks to prevent future attacks, facilitate attribution and deepen everyone's understanding of emerging threats. Enforcing stringent biosafety laws and maintaining a country-specific list of dangerous pathogens will also be critical in safeguarding global health.

With the security of biological facilities endangered, it is important to make sure that we raise awareness of the impacts of biological threats. WOAH’s programme, Fortifying Institutional Resilience Against Biological Threats, funded by Global Affairs Canada’s Weapons Threat Reduction Program in support of the objectives of the G7-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction (GP), was designed to address this need.  

Recognising that the evolving hazard landscape demands a new approach to animal health security, WOAH has taken timely action to enforce multi-sectoral collaboration. Conflict and biothreats - whether accidental or intentional - can amplify each other's impact, putting ecosystems in unique danger. And when they happen together, the consequences can only be catastrophic. This is why looking at interconnected risks is crucial for building preparedness and long-lasting resilience for a healthier, safer future.