Overcoming silos for One Health: Key determinants of One Health governance platforms in low- and lower-middle-income countries

Strupat, Christoph; Yasobant, Sandul; Srigiri, Srinivasa Reddy; Subramanian, Saravanan V. Working Paper Overcoming silos for One Health: Key determinants of One Health governance platforms in lowand lower-middleincome countries IDOS Discussion Paper, No. 13/2025 Provided in Cooperation with: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), Bonn Suggested Citation: Strupat, Christoph; Yasobant, Sandul; Srigiri, Srinivasa Reddy; Subramanian, Saravanan V. (2025) : Overcoming silos for One Health: Key determinants of One Health governance platforms in lowand lower-middle-income countries, IDOS Discussion Paper, No. 13/2025, ISBN 978-3-96021-258-4, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), Bonn, https://doi.org/10.23661/idp13.2025 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/316429 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Overcoming Silos for One Health Key Determinants of One Health Governance Platforms in Lowand Lower-Middle-Income Countries Christoph Strupat Sandul Yasobant Srinivasa Srigiri Saravanan Subramanian IDOS DISCUSSION PAPER 13/2025 Overcoming silos for One Health Key determinants of One Health governance platforms in lowand lower-middle-income countries Christoph Strupat Sandul Yasobant Srinivasa Srigiri Saravanan Subramanian Bonn 2025 Dr Christoph Strupat is a Project Lead and Senior Researcher in the department “Transformation of Economic and Social Systems” at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) in Bonn. Email: [email protected] Sandul Yasobant is Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar (IIPHG). Email: [email protected] Dr Srinivasa Srigiri is a Senior Researcher in the department “Environmental Governance” at IDOS. Email: [email protected] Dr Saravanan Subramanian is a Senior Researcher in the department “Environmental Governance” at IDOS. Email: [email protected] This Discussion Paper is part of the IDOS project “Fostering resilience through Health and Social Protection policies in times of multiple crises”. Published with financial support from the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), based on a resolution of the German Bundestag. The institutes of the Johannes-Rau-Forschungsgemeinschaft are institutionally funded by the state of NRW. Suggested citation: Strupat, C., Yasobant, S., Srigiri, S., & Subramanian, S. (2025). Overcoming silos for One Health: Key determinants of One Health governance platforms in lowand lower-middle-income countries (IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025). Bonn: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). https://doi.org/10.23661/idp13.2025 Disclaimer: The analyses expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). Except otherwise noted, this publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0). You are free to copy, communicate and adapt this work, as long as you attribute the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) gGmbH and the author(s). IDOS Discussion Paper / German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) gGmbH ISSN 2751-4439 (Print) ISSN 2751-4447 (Online) ISBN 978-3-96021-258-4 (Print) DOI: https://doi.org/10.23661/idp13.2025 © German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) gGmbH Tulpenfeld 6, 53113 Bonn Email: [email protected] https://www.idos-research.de Printed on eco-friendly, certified paper. IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 III Abstract This study addresses a critical gap in One Health governance literature by providing a comprehensive review of cross-sectoral One Health governance platforms in lowand lowermiddle-income countries across Asia and Africa. These platforms are pivotal for building resilience and improving governance at the human–animal–environment interface. Using a scoping review methodology, the study identifies 34 One Health platforms established across 52% of these countries, with a primary focus on zoonotic diseases and a growing emphasis on antimicrobial resistance and food safety. A polycentric governance lens was applied to analyse the interplay of authority, resources and information in shaping platform functionality. Key findings highlight that authority imbalances and single-sector dominance undermine stakeholder engagement, insufficient financial and human resources hinder operational capacity. Furthermore, weak data-sharing protocols limit timely coordination and evidence-based decisionmaking. The review identifies critical entry points for enhancing platform efficacy: clarifying governance frameworks, investing in cross-sectoral human capacity-building and strengthening data-sharing infrastructures with robust protocols and interoperable platforms. Keywords: One Health, governance, platforms, collaboration, LLMIC IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 IV Contents Abstract Abbreviations 1 Introduction 1 2 Coordination in polycentric One Health governance: conceptual framework 2 3 Scoping review methods 4 4 Findings 5 4.1 Overview of operationalisation of One Health platforms 5 4.2 Implementation acheivements and challenges of One Health Governance platforms 9 5 Discussion 11 5.1 Interplay between authority, resources and information 11 5.2 Key determinants for functioning One Health platforms 13 5.2.1 Clarifying governance frameworks and mandates 13 5.2.2 Investing in cross-sectoral capacity-building and leadership 14 5.2.3 Developing or strengthening data and information sharing 14 6 Conclusion 14 References 16 Appendix 20 Table A1: Detailed characteristics of included One Health platforms 20 Figures Figure 1: Availability of One Health Platforms in Africa and Asia 5 Figure 2: Number of platforms implemented by year 6 Figure 3: Priority areas of One Health Governance and coordination platforms 7 Figure 4: Key sectors/ministries involved in One Health platforms 8 Figure 5: Key sectors involved in One Health platforms according to their priority area 9 IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 V Abbreviations AMR antimicrobial resistance IAD Institutional Analysis and Development LLMICs lowand lower-middle-income countries LMICs lowand middle-income countries MoU memorandum of understanding OH One Health IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 1 1 Introduction The human–animal–environment interface presents a number of public health challenges (e.g. zoonotic diseases, anti-microbial resistance) that cannot be handled by a single sector (Zinsstag, Schelling, Wyss, & Mahamat, 2005). One Health is a concept that refers to the interlinkages of human, animal and environmental health, defined by One Health High-Level Expert Panel as an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognises that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent (OHHLEP [One Health High-Level Expert Panel], 2021). One Health emphasises collaboration and coordination across various sectors and disciplines. It contributes to the secure health of humans, animals and the environment by addressing multiple challenges such as infectious disease outbreaks, the development of anti-microbial resistance, food safety, and promoting the health and integrity of our ecosystem (Errecaborde et al., 2019). The practical implementation of the One Health approach is central to fostering resilient societies during health challenges. According to Blanchet, Nam, Ramalingam and Pozo-Martin (2017), societies and health systems can maintain stable control over their structure and functions while remaining equipped for future health threats. This underscores the importance of a crosssectoral, integrated human, animal and environmental health system that can anticipate, absorb, recover from and adapt to health risks – whether arising from infectious disease outbreaks, climate change or other interconnected challenges. However, despite the unanimous calls for cross-sectoral collaboration as an underlying principle for One Health, human, animal and environmental issues continue to be governed under ministerial silos, often attributed to political economy issues, power asymmetries and conflicting goals across sectors of governance (Nyatanyi et al., 2017; Ribeiro, van de Burgwal, & Regeer, 2019). Convergence towards the sustainable implementation of the One Health approach is often complex if the organisations or agencies involved in the partnership have distinct goals, different operating areas and a need for more integration arising from the interdependencies between their goals (Alderwick, Hutchings, Briggs, & Mays, 2021). In the past, several attempts have been made to overcome these cross-sectoral coordination challenges, particularly by establishing a One Health coordination mechanism, also commonly known as One Health platforms (Fasina et al., 2022; Ghai et al., 2022).1 These platforms/ coordination mechanisms refer to any formalised, standing group that strengthens or develops collaboration, communication and coordination among sectors at the human–animal– environment interface. They can support national and sub-national authorities with improving governance and coordination, allow ministries (or agencies) to interact regularly to support improved preparedness and response for One Health challenges, and create a way to coordinate all One Health activities across all relevant sectors (WHO [World Health Organization], 2019). The operational modes of One Health platforms depend on the country’s needs and priorities, and they can include different mechanisms (e.g. steering committee, intersectoral coordination unit, One Health office, etc.). The scientific literature presently lacks a comprehensive review of One Health platforms from lowand lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs) (Heitz-Tokpa et al., 2024). These countries often face various public health issues at the human–animal–environment interface, compounded by scarce resources. This situation underscores the necessity of bolstering multisectoral coordination to address these issues effectively. It is imperative to explore the critical factors contributing to the effective implementation of One Health platforms in these countries, although they have not been adequately investigated (Mwatondo et al., 2023). This Discussion 1 We will refer to these mechanisms as One Health platforms throughout the paper. IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 2 Paper, therefore, aims to answer the following research questions: i) What is the operationalisation level of One Health platforms in LLMICs, particularly when focusing on regions in Africa and Asia? ii) What are the key determinants of their functioning? The initial question is addressed through a comprehensive scoping review encompassing policy-level documents, strategic plans from various ministries, research articles and other pertinent sources to collate information across all LLMICs in Africa and Asia. Building on the insights derived from this review, the second question is explored through the analytical lenses of polycentricity – based on Ostrom, Tiebout and Warren’s (1961) premise of polycentric governance – and Koontz and Garrick’s (2019) proposition on the role of authority, information and resources in determining the interactions among actors in polycentric systems. Although decision-makers in the relevant sectors of One Health interact with each other at different levels through various formal and informal processes, One Health governance platforms are purposive institutional arrangements designed to interact in a coordinated manner in order to achieve shared outcomes; therefore, they can be analysed by employing a polycentric governance approach. The rest of the Discussion Paper is organised as follows. Section 2 defines the key theoretical concepts, particularly the polycentric governance approach used to analyse the review results. Section 3 describes the methods and the scope of this review. Section 4 presents the findings, including an overview of One Health governance and coordination platforms in LLMICs and the challenges faced during operationalisation. Section 5 discusses the key determinants for the functioning of One Health platforms and Section 6 concludes. 2 Coordination in polycentric One Health governance: conceptual framework The concept of One Health deals with the issues arising from interactions among human, animal and ecological systems. As a normative approach, One Health strategies aim at integrating policies or methods for securing human, animal and environmental health that are designed and implemented within formally independent sectors. The characteristics of the formal independence of the decision centres (sectors) involved – despite the existence of functional interdependencies among their actions, the various interactions they enter into and the purposive institutional arrangements for coordination among them – fulfil the criteria of polycentric systems, based on the definition given by Ostrom et al. (1961). What kinds of interactions the different decision centres enter into, the choice of coordination mechanisms and their effectiveness in a particular context are subjects for an empirical inquiry. Analyses using a polycentricity lens typically examine the interactions and arrangements for coordination among decision centres and how these arrangements impact governance performance (Thiel, 2016). The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (Ostrom, Gardner, & Walker, 1994) is one of the most widely used analytical frameworks for operationalizing the polycentricity approach. Scholars have traditionally applied the IAD framework towards analysing institutions and governance in order to provide public and common goods, involving the self-organisation of communities to manage their natural resources. These analyses predominantly focus on single-action situations and use various methods such as case studies, experiments and modelling (Kimmich, 2013; Poteete, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2010). Enhancements to the IAD framework, which incorporate adjacent action situations (McGinnis, 2011), have enabled the analysis of interactions across networked action situations that are involved in producing multiple interlinked public goods. This is particularly relevant in light of the growing demands for improved coordination across numerous sectors in delivering public goods, whereby activities in one domain can positively or negatively influence IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 9 Figure 5: Key sectors involved in One Health platforms according to their priority area Notes: Other sectors refer to culture, tourism, social affairs, land reclamation, trade, development, food. Source: Authors 4.2 Implementation achievements and challenges of One Health governance platforms Our analysis of One Health platforms in LLMICs has identified achievements and challenges that supported or impeded effective functioning. The subsequent sections provide an in-depth discussion of such achievements and challenges linked to the three key factors of polycentric governance identified by Koontz and Garrick (2019): authority, information and resources. Comprehensive details of each platform, the summarised achievement and the challenges are included in Table A1 in the Appendix. The Appendix includes all identified documents (e.g. reports, research articles, strategies) that provide information about the platforms and detail their implementation outcomes and challenges. Authority The distribution and devolution of authority are pivotal in defining leadership roles, accountability and ownership within One Health platforms. The effective regulation of authority can mitigate power struggles and ensure a shared sense of ownership and responsibility among all participating sectors. Countries such as Kenya and Nepal have encountered significant issues in implementing their coordination mechanisms due to leadership challenges, limited coordinated efforts among stakeholders and an absence of necessary policies for inter-sectoral collaboration (Acharya, Karki, Shrestha, & Kaphle, 2019; Kimani et al., 2019). The functioning of One Health platforms is notably reduced when they are perceived to be led by a single ministry such as health, agriculture or animal husbandry rather than being a genuinely collaborative, multisectoral endeavour (Asaaga et al., 2021; Berthe et al., 2018; Waswa et al., 2024). Addressing the power dynamics and fostering a shared sense of ownership and responsibility among all participating sectors is essential for enhancing the effectiveness and sustainability of platforms. To improve multisectoral coordination, dedicated leadership must balance such power dynamics among various sectors and institutions (Agbo et al., 2019; Heitz-Tokpa et al., 2024). For example, as demonstrated in the cases of Rwanda and Tanzania, establishing a IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 10 formal position for the One Health governance platform within the government hierarchy was an essential step (Igihozo et al., 2022; Kitua et al., 2019). This was accomplished through legislative mandates that clearly define the platform’s roles, responsibilities and authority, ensuring its recognition as an essential component of the overall national health governance framework. Information Establishing stringent and transparent protocols for information exchange is fundamental for successful One Health platform implementation, highlighting the essential role of information in enhancing coordination and collaboration among various sectors (USAID [US Agency for International Development], 2018; WHO, 2019). In countries such as Uganda, India and Nepal, the absence of established protocols for information exchange is evident (Acharya et al., 2019; Asaaga et al., 2021; Buregyeya et al., 2020). In several countries, regular information-sharing does not occur routinely, including the sharing of outbreak investigation reports between human and animal health sectors (Lagayan, 2020). Significant challenges have been identified, including the difficulty in reaching a consensus on pre-established rules for information-sharing at the operational level, which often highlights the limitations of a rigid top-down approach (Igihozo et al., 2022). Additional obstacles include a lack of foundational mutual trust, varying organisational priorities, and regulatory and legal barriers to information-sharing (Tangwangvivat et al., 2019). Moreover, differences in organisational cultures across sectors further complicate the realisation of information exchange (Asaaga et al., 2021). This can lead to ambiguity in defining roles and responsibilities, subsequently impacting the execution of One Health platforms. A further common issue documented across numerous One Health platforms pertains to the difficulties experienced in communication among the various involved sectors (Fasina et al., 2021). Countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Cameroon, Uganda, the Philippines, India and Bhutan have reported encountering substantial obstacles in establishing effective crosssectoral communication (Asaaga et al., 2021; Buregyeya et al., 2020; Erkyihun, Gari, Edao, & Kassa, 2022; Fossouo & Mouliom, 2024; Igihozo et al., 2022; Kimani et al., 2019; Lagayan, 2020). This indicates a critical need for enhanced communication strategies and practices that can bridge gaps, align interests and promote cohesive action among the various stakeholders involved in One Health platforms. Resources The allocation and availability of financial resources are crucial for the functioning of One Health platforms. Addressing the inadequacy of funding and infrastructure requires effective mobilisation and allocation of resources, underscoring the significance of resource distribution in operationalising and executing One Health initiatives. A notable challenge in many countries is the inadequacy of funding, particularly the lack of dedicated funds for One Health initiatives, which poses significant difficulties in operationalising and executing various activities, including One Health platforms (Agbo et al., 2019; Isoda, 2019; Lagayan, 2020). This issue of insufficient and unsustainable funding is prevalent in African countries (including the ECOWAS region) such as Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia and Cameroon (Erkyihun et al., 2022; Fossouo & Mouliom, 2024; Igihozo et al., 2022; Lokossou et al., 2021; Waswa et al., 2024) and Asian countries such as Nepal (Acharya et al., 2019). One can observe that funding for zoonotic diseases significantly exceeds the amount allocated for other priority areas, such as AMR, with current investment levels in AMR being approximately 10 times lower (Africa CDC, 2024). This discrepancy indicates a disease-driven approach in funding allocation, impacting the effectiveness of One Health platforms, which focuses on AMR. IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 11 Moreover, beyond the financial aspects, the inadequacy of resources, such as technical capacity and laboratory infrastructure, further compounds these challenges. In countries such as Kenya, Guinea and Egypt, the ineffective mobilisation and allocation of resources between sectors have been identified as significant impediments (Allal et al., 2019; Kimani et al., 2019; Standley et al., 2019). This resource limitation restricts the ability to conduct joint response activities and impacts the overall operational effectiveness of the One Health platforms. Therefore, the lack of sustainable funding and adequate infrastructure emerges as a critical barrier to the successful implementation and long-term viability of One Health initiatives. Challenges associated with human resources – including skill gaps in cross-sector cooperation and One Health knowledge – are significant in many countries and highlight the need for the adequate allocation and development of human resources. Countries in Africa, such as Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania and Egypt (Allal et al., 2019; Kimani et al., 2019; Kitua et al., 2019; Waswa et al., 2024), as well as Asian countries, including Bangladesh, Nepal and Vietnam (Acharya et al., 2019; Ahmed, Naher, Tune, & Islam, 2022; Bordier et al., 2018), have reported human resource-related challenges as significant obstacles in the deployment and functioning of their One Health platforms. Predominantly, the largest challenge lies not just in the availability of skilled personnel, but more critically in the knowledge and skills of how to foster effective cross-sectoral cooperation within One Health platforms (Lagayan, 2020; Lokossou et al., 2021). Further key issues frequently identified in relation to human resources include the high turnover of senior-level staff, a lack of the necessary personnel and inadequate allocation of staff resources (Ahmed et al., 2022). Given that the success of One Health platforms is inherently linked to cross-sectoral collaboration, the capability of human resources becomes a pivotal factor. A lack of understanding of the core principles of One Health among staff can lead to deficient coordination, communication and collaboration between different sectors (World Bank, 2012). This, in turn, can significantly impede the integration and effective implementation. 5 Discussion 5.1 Interplay between authority, resources and information The interplay between authority, resources and information emerges as a critical factor influencing the functioning of One Health platforms. Based on the scoping review of existing One Health platforms and their challenges during operationalisation, a holistic approach that effectively integrates these three elements is essential for improving coordination. The findings showed that One Health platforms have been implemented in 52% of LLMICs in Africa and Asia, with Asia leading early adoption. Key challenges include weak cross-sectoral informationsharing protocols and resource constraints such as inadequate funding and skilled personnel. Challenges with authority in One Health platforms stem from power imbalances and singleministry dominance. The following discussion examines the interplay between authority, resources and information, identifying the key determinants necessary to overcome barriers and enhance the functioning of One Health platforms. Authority and its implications Sectoral actors need clear mandates that authorise them to participate in the processes of making decisions about prioritising actions and allocating resources for different actions among others. To which sectors the higher-level central constitutional authority grants precedence to lead the processes of coordination depends on the socio-economic development level of the country and the most imminent risks it faces. The prioritisation of One Health strategies further depends on which sector is mandated with leading the mechanisms and which sectors are subordinated. A clear and equitable distribution of authority among sectors can foster an IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 12 inclusive environment in which all sectors feel valued and accountable. However, if authority is unevenly distributed or concentrated within a single ministry or sector, it can lead to power struggles, diminished stakeholder engagement and ineffective coordination. Authority also influences resource allocation and information flow. When authority structures are ambiguous, the mobilisation of financial and human resources becomes suboptimal, and information-sharing protocols are not standardised. Establishing an institutional or legal framework, such as legislative mandates or memoranda of understanding, can strengthen authority by providing clear guidelines on governance and operations (Agbo et al., 2019). This clarity helps prevent role ambiguity and overlaps that could hinder collaboration. For example, countries such as Rwanda and Tanzania have demonstrated success by legally embedding their One Health platforms into national governance systems. These platforms benefit from legislative backing that mandates intersectoral collaboration and formally recognises their roles within the broader health governance ecosystem (Igihozo et al., 2022; Kitua et al., 2019). Uganda provides another example of ensuring equitable power-sharing among stakeholders. The country employs a rotating coordination system for its One Health platform, wherein each sector takes turns leading the platform for a specified period (Agbo et al., 2019). This approach promotes inclusivity and ensures that no single sector dominates the decision-making process. By rotating leadership responsibilities, Uganda has empowered individual ministries and enhanced mutual understanding among stakeholders. This model demonstrates how flexible authority structures can balance power dynamics, which can potentially enable effective cross-sectoral coordination. Resources as an enabler Resources, mainly financial and human resources, are indispensable for operationalising One Health platforms and subsequent One Health activities. However, the availability and allocation of these resources are often contingent upon the authority structures in place. Platforms with strong legal and institutional authority are better positioned to secure funding from both domestic and international sources (Lagayan, 2020; Lokossou et al., 2021). For example, Thailand has demonstrated that it has legal and institutional authority and can sustainably fund its One Health platform, but it is being classified as an upper-middle-income country (Tangwangvivat et al., 2024; Sommanustweechai et al., 2017). Although clarity in authority structures may help avoid confusion about roles and responsibilities, clearly mandated authorities alone are not sufficient to guarantee the effective implementation of One Health platforms. The assignment of authority needs to be accompanied by the commensurate allocation of resources. Persistent power imbalances among sectors often undermine the fair distribution of resources among them. The interplay between resources and information is also significant. Adequate funding enables the establishment of robust information-sharing systems, such as centralised data repositories, coordinated cross-sectoral surveillance and outbreak monitoring networks (Errecaborde et al., 2019). These systems facilitate timely and accurate data exchange, which is critical for coordinated decision-making during emergencies. For instance, in countries where One Health platforms receive consistent funding, there is often a higher degree of integration between human, animal and environmental health sectors, leading to more effective responses to zoonotic disease outbreaks (Zinsstag et al., 2023). Equally critical is the investment in human resource capacity, as the success of One Health platforms is heavily dependent on the skills and knowledge of their members (Sullivan et al., 2023). Capacity-building initiatives should focus on cross-sectoral collaboration, conflict management and leadership skills to enhance the platform’s operational efficiency. Training programmes tailored to address these needs are essential, particularly for sectors with limited exposure to cross-sectoral management and leadership practices (Errecaborde et al., 2019). Given the involvement of multiple sectors, targeted conflict-resolution training can help mitigate IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 13 potential challenges arising from differing organisational cultures and priorities across the different One Health sectors. Resource constraints, whether financial, technical or human, can create cascading challenges in authority and information. For example, limited funding may restrict the development of essential infrastructure, such as data-sharing platforms, while low human resource capacities can impair the execution of coordinated responses of One Health platforms. This underscores the need for sustainable financing models, including domestic government funding, ensuring short-term functionality and long-term resilience. Information as the glue for coordination Information acts as the glue that binds the factors of authority and resources together. Without accurate, timely and transparent information, even the most well-funded and most equitably managed platforms can fail due to a lack of effective coordination. Establishing standardised information-sharing protocols is therefore critical for fostering trust and collaboration among sectors. In practice, the flow of information within One Health platforms is often hindered by legal, cultural and technical barriers (Asaaga et al., 2021; Fasina et al., 2021). For example, regulatory restrictions on data-sharing between sectors can delay critical decision-making during emergencies (Heitz-Tokpa et al., 2024). Similarly, differences in organisational priorities and communication styles can create misunderstandings and conflict (Kimani et al., 2019; Tangwangvivat et al., 2019). Addressing these challenges requires clear structures that equitably distribute authority across the One Health sectors to ensure compliance and foster collaboration, alongside adequate resources to develop and maintain robust information systems. The role of information in bridging authority and resources becomes particularly evident during health crises. During a zoonotic disease outbreak, for instance, timely datasharing between human, animal and environmental sectors can enable early detection and response, saving lives and resources (Kelly et al., 2020). 5.2 Key determinants for the functioning of One Health platforms All three factors – authority, resources and information – are closely interlinked, making it challenging to designate any single element as paramount. Authority forms the foundation for governance structures and informs resource allocation, while resources enable the practical implementation of tasks, including effective information-sharing mechanisms. Sufficient financial and human resources, combined with well-established authority, then facilitate robust datasharing protocols and infrastructure to support information flow. Consequently, the interplay among these three components, rather than reliance on any single determinant, ensures the functioning of One Health platforms. However, policy-makers and stakeholders can leverage specific key entry points to rapidly improve platform functionality. 5.2.1 Clarifying governance frameworks and mandates Clearly defined mandates, transparent responsibilities and integrated accountability measures reduce overlaps, minimise potential conflicts and provide a legal foundation for intersectoral collaboration. Initially, this framework does not need to be a formal legal document; however, certain aspects may require legal formalisation to ensure robust implementation. Key to this is the explicit detailing of a memorandum of understanding that includes the composition and formation of the platform’s steering group, its members and their respective functions (regulatory and financing mechanisms). Adopting a top-down approach can help bring clarity during One Health platform implementation. Defining precise roles, responsibilities and functions for each IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 14 sector and stakeholder is essential, and this process can be guided by a higher-level authority such as the presidential office or a cross-ministerial steering committee. A clear delineation of these roles enhances stakeholder understanding, leading to more effective communication and collaboration across sectors. 5.2.2 Investing in cross-sectoral capacity-building and leadership A key entry point is the human resource strategy: determining whether to utilise existing staff, recruit new personnel, or train existing staff and at what level. Training should focus on effective cross-sectoral cooperation within One Health platforms, conflict management and leadership skills. Since conflicts are more likely to arise with the involvement of multiple sectors, minimising them through targeted training becomes essential. It is important to recognise that not all sectors involved in the One Health platforms may have prior exposure to management and leadership training. Therefore, targeted training initiatives should be emphasised to ensure that all platform participants fully comprehend and can enact the collaborative ethos of the One Health approach. Establishing professional exchanges or rotational leadership roles across ministries can foster mutual understanding and break down institutional silos. Leadership development activities that include conflict resolution, communication strategies and systems thinking further ensure that diverse perspectives are integrated into decision-making processes. 5.2.3 Developing or strengthening data and information-sharing Robust data collection, processing and exchange systems enable real-time surveillance, early detection and evidence-based decision-making. The adoption of interoperable platforms, standardised data formats and secure cloud-based repositories can improve the accuracy and timeliness of shared information (OHHLEP et al., 2023). Clear guidelines on data governance that includes privacy regulations and intellectual property considerations bolster trust among stakeholders (Mercuri & Emerson, 2024). Such infrastructures and protocols allow relevant ministries and agencies to integrate surveillance efforts and rapidly mobilise coordinated responses to emerging health threats. 6 Conclusion This scoping review underscores the growing recognition of One Health platforms as essential coordination mechanisms in LLMICs, particularly in Africa and Asia. Although more than half of these countries have implemented at least one such platform, a clear emphasis on zoonotic diseases remains dominant, reflecting both the urgency and the disease-driven funding priorities within many public health systems. At the same time, AMR and food safety concerns gradually gain visibility, suggesting a trajectory towards more comprehensive One Health governance. The analytical lens of polycentric governance provided a structured framework for examining the functioning of One Health platforms. By focusing on the key factors – authority, resources and information – the review shows the multiple interactions that can either enhance or undermine cross-sectoral collaboration. It highlights key entry points for improving platform functionality. Results show that ambiguous or unevenly distributed authority frequently results in power asymmetries, diminishing stakeholder engagement. Limited financial and human resources further restrict platform functionality and undermine cross-sectoral collaborations. The absence of standardised information-sharing protocols also emerges as a recurring obstacle, hindering the timely exchange of critical data and constraining evidence-based decision-making. Despite these hurdles, the experiences of countries such as Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda illustrate that well-designed institutional arrangements – backed by legislation, rotating IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 15 leadership or robust memoranda of understanding – can pave the way for more equitable governance and collaborative momentum. Success, therefore, depends on clarifying governance frameworks and mandates, sustainable financing, investing in capacity-building and leadership development, and strengthening data-sharing infrastructures. Future research should evaluate how these platforms function over time, particularly as countries seek to address newer challenges, such as the impacts of climate change on health. Systematically integrating factors of authority, resources and information to improve cross-sectoral coordination can enhance the resilience of One Health platforms, thereby advancing both human and animal health while safeguarding environmental integrity. IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 16 References Acharya, K. P., Karki, S., Shrestha, K., & Kaphle, K. (2019). One Health approach in Nepal: Scope, opportunities, and challenges. One Health, 8, 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2019.100101 Africa CDC. (2024). Voicing African priorities on the active pandemic: Accelerating the continental response to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). African Union. https://africacdc.org/download/african-union-amrlandmark-report-voicing-african-priorities-on-the-activepandemic/?ind=1724131853445&filename=PUBLISHED_African-Union-AMR-Landmark-Report-.pdf Agbo, S., Gbaguidi, L., Biliyar, C., Sylla, S., Fahnbulleh, M., Dogba, J., …Kitua, A. (2019). Establishing national multisectoral coordination and collaboration mechanisms to prevent, detect, and respond to public health threats in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone 2016-2018. One Health Outlook, 1, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42522-019-0001-3 Ahmed, S. M., Naher, N., Tune, S. N. B. K., & Islam, B. Z. (2022). The implementation of National Action Plan (NAP) on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Bangladesh: Challenges and lessons learned from a cross-sectional qualitative study. Antibiotics, 11(5), 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11050690 Alderwick, H., Hutchings, A., Briggs, A., & Mays, N. (2021). The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: A systematic review of reviews. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10630-1 Allal, L., Mahrous, H., Saad, A., Refaei, S., Attia, M., Mahrous, I., …Abdelnabi, A. (2019). From four-way linking to a One Health platform in Egypt: Institutionalisation of a multidisciplinary and multisectoral One Health system. https://api.healthsecuritynet.org/get/file/From Four-Way Linking to a One Health Platform in Egypt: Institutionalisation of a Multidisciplinary and Multisectoral One Health System?id=2676 Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Asaaga, F. A., Young, J. C., Oommen, M. A., Chandarana, R., August, J., Joshi, J., …Purse, B. V. (2021). Operationalising the “One Health” approach in India: Facilitators of and barriers to effective crosssector convergence for zoonoses prevention and control. BMC Public Health, 21, 1-21. Berthe, F. C. J., Bouley, T., Karesh, W. B., Legall, I. C., Machalaba, C. C., Plante, C. A., & Seifman, R. M. (2018). One Health: Operational framework for strengthening human, animal, and environmental public health systems at their interface (No. 122980). World Bank. Blanchet, K., Nam, S. L., Ramalingam, B., & Pozo-Martin, F. (2017). Governance and capacity to manage resilience of health systems: Towards a new conceptual framework. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 6(8), 431. Bordier, M., Binot, A., Pauchard, Q., Nguyen, D. T., Trung, T. N., Fortané, N., & Goutard, F. L. (2018). Antibiotic resistance in Vietnam: Moving towards a One Health surveillance system. BMC Public Health, 18, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5674-9 Braam, D. H., Tasker, A., Parravani, E., & Saville, K. (2023). A fair share? Animal health actors and resources in One Health initiatives: A multisite case study in Ethiopia and Pakistan. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1079/cabionehealth.2023.0015 Buregyeya, E., Atusingwize, E., Nsamba, P., Musoke, D., Naigaga, I., Kabasa, J. D., …Bazeyo, W. (2020). Operationalizing the One Health approach in Uganda: Challenges and opportunities. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7758849/ Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2019). Polycentric systems of governance: A theoretical model for the commons. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 927-952. Cham, D., Barrow, A., Shah-Rohlfs, R., & Standley, C. J. (2024). Can global health security frameworks measure One Health implementation in West Africa? A mixed-methods study. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 2113. Clement, F. (2010). Analysing decentralized natural resource governance: Proposition for a “politicized” Institutional Analysis and Development framework. Policy Sciences, 43(2), 129-156. IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 17 Erkyihun, G. A., Gari, F. R., Edao, B. M., & Kassa, G. M. (2022). A review on One Health approach in Ethiopia. One Health Outlook, 4(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42522-022-00065-z Errecaborde, K. M., Macy, K. W., Pekol, A., Perez, S., O’Brien, M. K., Allen, I., …Pelican, K. (2019). Factors that enable effective One Health collaborations: A scoping review of the literature. PLOS ONE, 14(12), e0224660. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224660 Fasina, F. O., Bett, B., Dione, M., Mutua, F., Roesel, K., Thomas, L., …Bebay, C. (2022). One Health gains momentum in Africa but room exists for improvement. One Health, 15, 100428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100428 Fasina, F. O., Fasanmi, O. G., Makonnen, Y. J., Bebay, C., Bett, B., & Roesel, K. (2021). The One Health landscape in sub-Saharan African countries. One Health, 13, 100325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100325 Fossouo, V. N., & Mouliom, M. M. M. (2024). From theory to practice: Analyzing factors that foster the successful implementation of the One Health approach for enhancing health security in Cameroon. One Health, 18, 100738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100738 Ghai, R. R., Wallace, R. M., Kile, J. C., Shoemaker, T. R., Vieira, A. R., Negron, M. E., …Barton Behravesh, C. (2022). A generalizable One Health framework for the control of zoonotic diseases. Scientific Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12619-1 Heitz-Tokpa, K., Kaiser-Grolimund, A., Savilaakso, S., Petrovan, S., Chimwaza, G., Ssenono, R., …Zinsstag, J. (2024). Understanding the critical factors which support or inhibit the effective implementation of the One Health approach in Africa. Juno Reports, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juno.2024.100001 Igihozo, G., Henley, P., Ruckert, A., Karangwa, C., Habimana, R., Manishimwe, R., …Labonté, R. (2022). An environmental scan of One Health preparedness and response: The case of the Covid-19 pandemic in Rwanda. One Health Outlook, 4(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42522-022-00060-4 Isoda, N. (2019). Zoonosis and food safety – improving collaboration between animal and public health professionals to achieve a better outcome. OIE Regional Commission for Asia. http://dx.doi.org/10.20506/TT.2988 Kelly, T. R., Machalaba, C., Karesh, W. B., Crook, P. Z., Gilardi, K., Nziza, J., …Mazet, J. A. (2020). Implementing One Health approaches to confront emerging and re-emerging zoonotic disease threats: Lessons from PREDICT. One Health Outlook, 2, 1-7. Kimani, T., Kiambi, S., Eckford, S., Njuguna, J., Makonnen, Y., Rugalema, G., …Fasina, F. O. (2019). Expanding beyond zoonoses: The benefits of a national One Health coordination mechanism to address antimicrobial resistance and other shared health threats at the human-animal-environment interface in Kenya. Europe PMC. https://europepmc.org/article/med/31564733 Kimmich, C. (2013). Linking action situations: Coordination, conflicts, and evolution in electricity provision for irrigation in Andhra Pradesh, India. Ecological Economics, 90(C), 150-158. Kitua, A. Y., Scribner, S., Rasmuson, M., Kambarage, D., Mghamba, J., Mwakapeje, E. R., …Mutonga, D. (2019). Building a functional national One Health platform: The case of Tanzania. One Health Outlook, 1(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42522-019-0002-2 Koontz, T. M., & Garrick, D. E. (2019). Interactions and performance in polycentric governance. In A. Thiel, D. E. Garrick, & W. A. Blomquist (Eds.), Governing complexity: Analyzing and applying polycentricity (pp. 111-194). Cambridge University Press. Lagayan, M. G. O. (2020). Multisectoral collaboration mechanisms (MCMs) for prevention and control of zoonoses – The state of play in the Asia Pacific region. Unpublished manuscript. School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 Lokossou, V. K., Atama, N. C., Nzietchueng, S., Koffi, B. Y., Iwar, V., Oussayef, N., …Ouendo, E. M. (2021). Operationalizing the ECOWAS regional One Health coordination mechanism (2016-2019): Scoping review on progress, challenges and way forward. One Health, 13, 100291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100291 IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025 18 McGinnis, M. D. (2011). Networks of adjacent action situations in polycentric governance. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 51-78. Mercuri, M., & Emerson, C. I. (2024). Normative challenges in data governance: Insights from global health research. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 1-9. Molle, F. (2007). Scales and power in river basin management: The Chao Phraya River in Thailand. Geographical Journal, 173(4), 358-373. Morrison, T. H., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema, D., Phelps, J., …Hughes, T. P. (2019). The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 57, 101934. Mudaliar, P. (2023). What matters for coordination? Examining overlaps and interactions in Lake Victoria’s polycentric fisheries in Tanzania. Regional Environmental Change, 23(4), 136. Mwatondo, A., Rahman-Shepherd, A., Hollmann, L., Chiossi, S., Maina, J., Kurup, K. K., …Dar, O. (2023). A global analysis of One Health networks and the proliferation of One Health collaborations. The Lancet, 401(10376), 605-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00091-5 Nyatanyi, T., Wilkes, M., McDermott, H., Nzietchueng, S., Gafarasi, I., Mudakikwa, A., …Binagwaho, A. (2017). Implementing One Health as an integrated approach to health in Rwanda. BMJ Global Health, 2(1), e000121. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000121 Oberhauser, D., Hägele, R., & Dombrowsky, I. (2023). Unravelling hidden factors explaining competition for and overuse of groundwater in Azraq, Jordan: Digging deeper into a network of action situations. Sustainability Science 18, 235-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01135-w OHHLEP. (2021). OHHLEP’s definition of One Health. https://www.zoonosen.net/en/ohhleps-definitionone-health OHHLEP, Hayman, D. T., Adisasmito, W. B., Almuhairi, S., Behravesh, C. B., Bilivogui, P., …Koopmans, M. (2023). Developing one health surveillance systems. One Health, 100617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100617 Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831-842. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400125973 Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University Press. Republic of Kenya Zoonotic Disease Unit. (2022). One Health strategic plan for the prevention and control of zoonotic diseases in Kenya (2021-2025). https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ken210718.pdf Ribeiro, C., van de Burgwal, L. H. M., & Regeer, B. J. (2019). Overcoming challenges for designing and implementing the One Health approach: A systematic literature review. One Health, 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ONEHLT.2019.100085 Royal Government of Bhutan. (2018). National action plan on antimicrobial resistance (2018–2022). Ministry of Health. https://rr-asia.woah.org/app/uploads/2020/03/bhutan-national-action-plan-on-amr20128-2022.pdf Sommanustweechai, A., Iamsirithaworn, S., Patcharanarumol, W., Kalpravidh, W., & Tangcharoensathien, V. (2017). Adoption of One Health in Thailand’s national strategic plan for emerging infectious diseases. Journal of Public Health Policy, 38, 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-017-0063-1 Standley, C. J., Carlin, E. P., Sorrell, E. M., Barry, A. M., Bile, E., Diakite, A. S., …Katz, R. (2019). Assessing health systems in Guinea for prevention and control of priority zoonotic diseases: A One Health approach. One Health, 7, 100093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2019.100093 Sullivan, A., Ogunseitan, O., Epstein, J., Kuruchittham, V., Nangami, M., Kabasa, D., …One Health Workforce – Next Generation Consortium. (2023). International stakeholder perspectives on One Health training and empowerment: A needs assessment for a One Health Workforce Academy. One Health Outlook, 5(1), 8. Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper 10. National One Health Steering Committee (NOHSC) 2016 Ethiopia Zoonotic diseases MOH, MOA, EWCA, MCT and universities such as Addis Ababa, Jimma and Mekelle ● Prioritisation of zoonotic diseases based on their impact on humans and livestock ● The development of prevention and control working documents for prioritised zoonotic diseases ● Joint disease surveillance and outbreak investigation ● Prioritisation of zoonotic diseases ● Capacity-building ● Other OH promotions ● Poor integration among sectors in data-sharing and communication ● Institutionalisation of OH ● Lack of continuous advocacy among the community ● Lack of financial funds from the government ● Limited research fund https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC9023113/ 11. National One Health Platform 2018 Mali Disease outbreaks of pandemic potential, AMR Ministry of Health Ministries of Livestock Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture ● The platform has a National Strategic Plan ● Multisectoral activities and implementation: Holding 22 monthly meetings, holding the preparatory workshop for the steering committee ● Training module validation activity: National workshop to prioritise zoonoses (five priority zoonoses in Mali) ● 33 focal points and deputies ● Establishment of regional platforms ● National Strategic Plan to fight against antimicrobial resistance ● Training of trainers ● Insufficient funding for the formalisation of the platform https://cgspace.cgiar. org/bitstream/handle/ 10568/129686/onehe alth_westafrica.pdf?s equence https://reliefweb.int/rep ort/mali/mali-nationalaction-plan-antimicro bial-resistance-reviewprogress-humanhealth-sector#:~:text= The%20Ministry%20of %20Health%20and%2 0Social%20Affairs%20 recently%20establishe d%20a,dedicated%20t o%20AMR%20(2). https://ml.usembassy .gov/launch-of-onehealth-plateform-inmali/ Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper 12. National One Health Platform 2017 Senegal Zoonotic disease Ministry of Health Ministry of Livestock and Animal Production Ministry of Environment ● Regionalisation of the OH approach ● Simulation exercises for nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological risks ● Training/ awareness-raising kits for schools ● Strengthening the institutional framework of the High National Council for Health Security ● OH, community ownership, operational research https://cgspace.cgiar. org/bitstream/handle/ 10568/129686/onehe alth_westafrica.pdf?s equence https://www.measuree valuation.org/resource s/publications/tr-18255/at_download/docu ment https://www.ajol.info/i ndex.php/jrsul/article/ view/184545 13. National One Health Platform 2020 Côte d’Ivoire Zoonotic diseases Ministry of Health Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development ● Development of national reference documents: Drafting of regulatory texts ● Capacity-building / existence of student club in universities / transdisciplinary research / multisectoral collaboration / prioritisation of zoonoses / joint investigations Advocating for the: ● Engagement of all stakeholders ● Operationalisation of the platform / mobilisation of resources https://cgspace.cgiar. org/bitstream/handle/ 10568/129686/onehe alth_westafrica.pdf?s equence 14. National One Health Platform 2014 Cameroon Zoonotic diseases Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Animal Husbandries Ministry of Public Health Ministry of Forest and Wildlife Ministry of Environment and Protection of Nature ● Prevention and mitigation ● Prioritisation of zoonotic diseases ● Risk assessment ● Epidemiological surveillance ● Preparedness plans and procedures ● Training simulation exercises ● Insufficient ownership of the OH approach by certain sectors, weak sensitisation of the private sector and civil society and insufficient resources to carry out activities to promote the approach ● Sustainable financing ● Not focusing on other public health issues https://www.afro.who. int/sites/default/files/2 018-02/Report%20of %20the%20One%20 Health%20Technical %20and%20Ministeri al%20Meeting%20-- %20Dakar_.pdf https://www.woah.org /app/uploads/2023/04 /jm-feussom.pdf Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper https://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/arti cle/pii/S23527714240 00648 https://onehealthbeha viors.org/countries/ca meroon-2/#toggle-id2-closed 15. National One Health Coordination Mechanism (MCM) 2017 Egypt Zoonotic diseases Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP) Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MoALR) ● Improve information and datasharing, knowledge transfer and collaboration between all sectors, thereby increasing efficiency in the use of resources ● Developing centres of excellence for education and training in specific areas through enhanced collaboration among colleges of veterinary medicine and human medicine ● Capacity-building ● Identification of critical OH workforce shortages in all sectors and the development of solutions in collaboration with key stakeholders ● Necessary infrastructure and resources ● Key leadership to embrace the concept of OH, to obtain buy-in from the human, animal and environment health sectors and other relevant partners ● Differences in organisational cultures and competing priorities ● Lack of equitable resources ● Lack of communication and advocacy plan ● Lack of support from various stakeholders Allal et al. (2019) 16. Multisectoral technical working group (AMR platform) 2011 Ghana AMR Ministry of Health Ministry of Food and Agriculture Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation AMR platform members’ actions resulted in three remarkable outcomes: ● (1) Maintained network of AMR champions ● (2) Design and launch of a national policy on antimicrobial use resistance in Ghana (1st edition) and its accompanying NAP (2017-2021) ● (3) Ghana’s hosting of the second global call to action on AMR ● AMR platform as a policy community floated ideas and solu tions on strategies to improve AMR N/A https://link.springer.c om/article/10.1186/s4 2522-021-00051w#MOESM3 Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper awareness, strengthen knowledge and evidence base, reduce incidence of infection, optimise the use of antimicrobial agents and develop an economic case for sustainable investments in new medicines, diagnostic tools and other interventions 17. National One Health Technical Committee 2023 Nigeria Zoonotic diseases Ministry of Health Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Environment N/A N/A https://gphihr.tghn.org/ news/inaugurationnigeria-national-onehealth-technicalcommittee/ https://ncdc.gov.ng/nc dc.gov.ng/news/503/ni geria-holds-itsnational-one-healthsteering-committeeinaugural-meeting https://onehealthbehav iors.org/wp-content/ uploads/2022/09/Niger ia_One_Health_Strate gy_2019-2023.pdf 18. National One Health Platform 2011 DR Congo Zoonotic diseases Food security AMR Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock Ministry of Interior, Decentralization, Security and Customary Affairs Ministry of Health, Hygiene and Prevention ● Development of National One Health Strategy (2022-2026) ● Development of governance manuals and internal regulations ● Developed OH training modules for in-service professionals and pre-service students ● Integrated OH competencies into curricula at some universities ● Established provincial OH platforms in 12 provinces ● Despite high-level recognition, practical support and funding from the government remain insufficient ● Lack of ownership and reliance on external donors undermine sustainability ● Leadership conflicts between ministries, particularly the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Higher Education, create coordination challenges ● Limited integration of OH activities into the national budget ● High turnover of trained personnel at provincial and territorial levels disrupts continuity https://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/arti cle/pii/S23527714240 0260X Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper Ministry of Primary, Secondary and Vocational Education Ministry of Media and Communication Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development Ministry of Social Affairs Ministry of Scientific Research and Technological Innovation ● Conducted sensitisation workshops and training for provincial stakeholders ● Coordinated responses to outbreaks, including Mpox and rabies ● Developed national plans for rabies elimination (2022-2033) and risk communication for zoonotic diseases ● Published quarterly OH newsletters to raise awareness and report activities ● Lack of adequate infrastructure and resources for data collection and sharing across human, animal and environmental health sectors ● Provincial OH platforms are dependent on donor support, leaving some regions without operational platforms 19. National One Health Platform 2019 Burkina Faso Zoonotic disease Ministry of Health (MOH) Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries (MARF) Ministry of the Environment, Green Economy and Climate Change (MEGECC) ● Implementation of platform has improved collaboration between the different sectors, either by formalising what already existed or by creating a framework for consultation that is conducive to new interactions ● Chairmanship positions of the various bodies is distributed among the different sectors and institutions ● Permanent secretariat of the OH platform within the Ministry of Health, for which zoonotic diseases are not a priority ● Lack of information-sharing, through the issuing of a Strategic Plan at ministerial level and through the missing development of protocols at the operational level ● Lack adequate resources to function, particularly for its steering and coordination bodies. There is still no specific domestic budget dedicated to the platform’s activities, to train staf f from the various ministries in the approach or to enable collaborative activities in the field (e.g. joint case investigations) ● Setting up of the platform was entirely financed by external donors https://link.springer.c om/article/10.1186/s1 2889-022-13878-3 https://iris.who.int/bits tream/handle/10665/ 351442/9789240040 410eng.pdf?sequence=1 Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper 20. National One Health Platform 2022 Niger Zoonotic disease Ministry of Public Health, Population and Social Affairs (MSP/P/AS) Ministry of Livestock Ministry of the Environment and the Fight against Desertification N/A N/A https://onehealthbehav iors.org/wp-content/ uploads/2022/09/Doc_ Final_Gouv_OneHealth_27_7_22Niger.pdf https://breakthroughac tionandresearch.org/le arning-together-peerlearning-inspiresaction-to-improve-onehealth-in-niger-andsenegal/ 21. National One Health Platform 2023 Madagascar Zoonotic disease N/A N/A N/A https://www.fao.org/ani mal-health/newsevents/news/detail/ma dagascar-strengthensanimal-zoonoticdisease-surveillancesystem-throughSET/?utm_source=ch atgpt.com 22. National One Health Platform 2023 Togo Zoonotic disease Ministry of Health Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture N/A N/A https://www.togofirst.c om/fr/sante/290812429-le-togo-lancela-plateforme-uneseule-sante-pourminimiser-les-risqueslies-auxepidemies?utm_sourc e=chatgpt.com https://sante.gouv.tg/ef ficacite-et-efficiencedans-la-reponse-auxepidemies/?utm_sourc e=chatgpt.com Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper 23. Zambia National Public Health Institute (ZNPHI) 2020 Zambia Zoonotic disease AMR Ministry of Health Ministry of Green Economy and Environment Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock Ministry of Information and Media Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development Ministry of Tourism and Arts Ministry of Water Development and Sanitation Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU) Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security (Police) ● Developed National One Health Strategic Plan (2022-2026) ● Has supported to detect and respond to zoonotic diseases through the OH approach by prioritising the country’s top ten zoonotic diseases, including African trypanosomiasis, anthrax, and rabies, using a multisectoral OH approach ● Launched the One Health Surveillance Platform for AMR. This platform aims to improve data collection, analysis and quality across laboratories and sectors, enabling the government to make data-driven decisions to combat AMR N/A https://www.cabidigit allibrary.org/doi/pdf/1 0.1079/onehealthcas es.2024.0021 Asian countries 1. InterAgency Committee on AntiMicrobial Resistance (IACMR) 2014 Philippines AMR Department of Health (lead), Department of Agriculture (Co-lead) Members: Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) ● With support from the WHOWPRO, the Philippines was able to conduct a Country Situation Analysis (CSA) on AMR and developed policies to address this problem ● This partnership was further strengthened with the country being chosen in the Western Pacific Region as one of the pilot sites on the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programme in hospitals ● Weak collaboration between FDA and the BAI Animal Feed, Veterinary Drug and Biologicals Division on the control of veterinary drugs https://icamr.doh.gov. ph/wpcontent/uploads/2022/ 02/NATIONALACTION-PLAN-TOCOMBAT-AMR.pdf https://www.mdpi.com /2079-6382/11/6/820 https://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/articl e/pii/S235277142400 0843 Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper 2. Philippine Interagency Committee on Zoo nosis (PhiICZ) 2011 Philippines Zoonotic diseases Department of Health (DOH) Department of Agriculture (DA) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Bureau of Animal Husbandry ● To develop a national strategy on prevention, control and elimination of zoonoses and establish a functional and sustainable mechanism to strengthen the animal-human interface for the effective prevention, control and elimination of zoonotic diseases ● Absence of coordination between DA and DOH on zoonotic diseases https://www.bai.gov.p h/blogdetail?b=BAI%20Upd ates%20National%20 Strategic%20Plan%2 0on%20Zoonoses https://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/articl e/pii/S235277142400 0843 3. Standing Committee on Zoonosis ICAR and ICINR Task Force for Zoonosis 2006 India Zoonotic diseases Department of Animal Industry, Dairying, and Fisheries (DADF) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) Ministry of Law and Justice Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MFPI) Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) Export Inspection Council (EIC) The National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) ● Meets biannually / annually to advise on various facets of the work on zoonoses ● One Health India – conference, table-top exercises ● National multisectoral technical consultation ISC ● Good coordination with multiple stakeholders at national level and in some states ● Regular formal meetings established with many coordinating partners with terms of reference, minutes and formal reports ● A number of joint programmes operating with government stakeholders ● Huge country ● Diverse administrative structure of different states and different departments ● Competing priorities of the government ● Little coordination at state level ● Unpredictable funding ● Geo-climatic challenges https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.n ih.gov/articles/PMC82 04840/ https://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/articl e/pii/S235277141930 0011 https://www.onehealth journal.org/Vol.6/No.2 /12.html https://link.springer.co m/article/10.1186/s12 889-021-11545-7 Lagayan (2020) Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper Department of Agriculture and Research and Education (DARE) Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers Welfare Veterinary colleges 4. Intersectoral Coordination Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance (ICCAMR) 2016 India AMR Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Health Research Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries Department of Biotechnology CSIR CDSCO, FSSAI, AYUSH, NMC Director General of Health Services (DGHS) MoHFW Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries Ministry of Food Processing Industries ● National Action Plan on AMR ● Lack of sufficient finances ● Inappropriate antibiotic use owing to a number of reasons, lack of diagnostic facilities, widespread use of antibiotics in various sectors, environmental contamination because of pharmaceutical industry, agricultural and hospital waste, gaps in infection prevention and control, and difficulty in enforcing regulations https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/P MC6618210/#:~:text= The%20Indian%20NA P%20for%20AMR,a% 20big%20push%20is %20needed https://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/articl e/pii/S221371652100 2228 Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper Ministry of Environment & Forest & Climate Change 5. High Level National Multisectoral Steering Committee (NMSC) 2017 Myanmar AMR Chair: Ministry of Health and Sports Members: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation Ministry of Education Ministry of Commerce Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Defence ● Provide the necessary political commitment and support ● Strong laboratory network, existing infection control and biosecurity programme s in human and animal health sectors and a National One Health Strategy that identifies AMR as a priority ● Lack of awareness on AMR and AMU among stakeholders across the board ● A significant problem of over-the-counter sales of AMAs in both human and animal sectors https://faolex.fao.org/ docs/pdf/mya202553. pdf https://www.thelancet. com/journals/lanwpc/a rticle/PIIS26666065(20)300845/fulltext 6. Zoonoses Technical Working Group (Z-TWG) National Avian Influenza Control Committee 2019 Cambodia Zoonotic disease Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry of Health ● Lab-epi training AET/CAVET N/A https://www.woah.org/ fileadmin/Home/eng/M edia_Center/docs/EN_ TripartiteZoonosesGui de_webversion.pdf https://www.ghsindex. org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/ 12/Cambodia.pdf Lagayan (2020) Sr. No. Name of platform Implementation year Geographical area Priority area Ministries involved / Key organisations Achievements Challenges Online link to study/paper Health (DAPH) in the Ministry of Agriculture 21. National Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance (NACAMR) under ‘One Health’ concept 2017 Sri Lanka AMR Ministry of Health Medical Research Institute and the Communication and Health Promotion Department Health Education Bureau Department of Animal Production and Health (DAPH) in the Ministry of Agriculture ● Finalisation of the National Strategic Plan ● The DAPH has no formal link with the Department of Fisheries, Department of Wildlife in the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources for fish or wildlife surveillance https://www.who.int/ publications/m/item/ sri-lanka-nationalstrategic-plan-forcombatingantimicrobialresistance-in-srilanka-2017-2022 Lagayan (2020) 22. One Health Hub 2017 Pakistan Zoonotic diseases AMR Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations, and Coordination Ministry of National Food Security and Research Ministry of Climate Change Ministry of Science and Technology ● Collaborated with the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and US Department of Agriculture to create a framework for prioritising endemic and emerging zoonotic diseases ● Established working groups addressing AMR, influenza and laboratory capacity ● Engaged stakeholders across sectors, with ongoing efforts to improve the inclusion of animal and environmental health ● Strengthened laboratory capacities and provided training to veterinary officers through international collaborations ● Conducted prioritisation exercises to focus resources and efforts on critical zoonotic diseases ● Facilitated the implementation of global projects, such as rabies elimination, at the provincial level with WHO support ● Limited collaboration and coordination among human, animal and environmental health sectors ● Absence of a formalised structure to ensure sustained multisectoral engagement ● Inadequate funding to support OH initiatives and longterm projects ● Limited human resources, particularly skilled professionals trained in the OH approach ● Greater emphasis on human health, with underrepresentation of animal and environmental health sectors ● Challenges in prioritising environmental health issues alongside zoonotic disease management ● Limited laboratory capacities and surveillance systems for zoonotic diseases and AMR ● Fragmented data systems across sectors impede effective surveillance and risk assessment ● Lack of standardised mechanisms for sharing information between ministries and agencies https://www.cabidigi tallibrary.org/doi/ep df/10.1079/cabione health.2023.0015 https://www.tandfon line.com/doi/full/10. 3402/iee.v6.33842# d1e521