One Health, multiple gaps: Comparative analysis of global policies for zoonotic surveillance

Understanding potential spillover risk remains critical given that an estimated 75% of human pathogens have zoonotic origins. However, despite calls for action, little work has been conducted to establish a global baseline on policies related to One Health, particularly dealing with the transmission and risks of zoonoses. Understanding the current regulatory and monitoring landscape provides the means to identify both gaps, and areas in greatest need of increased attention. Here we explore the national and international policy linked to One Health, related to both domestic animal husbandry and international import, and spanning livestock, companion animals and wildlife, as well as comparable measures for plant health. We assess the dimensions and gaps in wildlife health surveillance for zoonotic risk management. We also assess the standards for data collation during analyses of zoonotic pathogens, particularly around the recording of key ecological and ecophysiological parameters which may be critical to modelling and managing risks of wildlife spillover into the future. We find that regulations around One Health monitoring focus primarily on livestock and common pets, whereas regulations for other animals are far more variable (or absent), and phytosanitary surveillance often focuses on a subset of pathogens. Furthermore, whilst some high-income economies do have regulations for animal and plant health for import, how this is monitored and enforced varies, and it is typically limited to a subset of conditions. Yet, even for countries with the strictest entry requirements, virtually no systematised monitoring of wildlife health is in place (for either zoonoses or epizootics), and standards around recording of ecological parameters are entirely absent. Consequently, despite ambitious plans around health, major gaps still exist, with little evidence of concerted efforts to reconcile these gaps.