EXCHANGE AND COORDINATION: CHALLENGES OF THE GLOBAL ONE HEALTH MOVEMENT

Current economic, social, and environmental trajectories within most world regions are unsustainable. Interaction between bottom-up initiatives and top-down good governance is essential to change them. The One Health movement, made up of many organizations, groups, and individuals from diverse backgrounds and disciplines, seeks to redress the present trajectories but has lacked coordination and cooperation, limiting its effectiveness to date. We take a snapshot of groups/organizations working to promote One Health, explore options to increase cooperation and coordination among global One Health stakeholders, and propose systemic strategies that could positively impact animals, people, the planet, plants, and politics.Methods: Through a review of the compilation of Who’s Who in One Health organizations on the One Health Commission’s (OHC) website and the list of organizations that have pledged support for One Health listed on the One Health Initiative (OHI) website, 289 organizations were identified (as of 29 July 2022: 126 Civil Society Organizations, 133 academic and 30 governmental organizations). A stratified sampling approach and MAXQDA 2022 were used in a mixed-methods analysis to select a sample (N=50) of organizations to evaluate with 10 questions on purpose & focus, structure & transparency, cooperation & implementation, and publications. Results: The words “One Health” appeared in the organizations’ names on 62.0% (N=31) of websites examined, most often those in academic settings (78.2%). As regards transparency of the organizational structures, membership was defined in 70.0% (N=35), again most often by academic organizations (82.6%). Members of the governing structures were named on 34.0% of organizational websites. Projects led in the last two years were described on 32.0%, and cooperation with other organizations was indicated on 64.0% of websites examined. Relevant publications and annual reports were listed on 46.0% and 24.0% of probed websites, respectively. Ranking the number of positive findings for each of the 50 organizations examined revealed that full information for all ten questions was provided by only 4 academic and 1 governmental organization.The OHC website was used as a starting point and thus was not included in the N=50 samples. It was therefore examined as an example of a Non-Profit / CSO working to support bottom-up One Health leadership. Since 2014 the OHC has supported a Global One Health Community listserv of individuals from around the globe. The analysis revealed a dominance of Directors from the US and a high proportion of organizations included on the OHC Who’s Who in One Health organizations webpage were located in North America. The social sciences - sociology and economics in particular – were underrepresented among in its leadership. Conclusion: These 10 questions may not have been fully appropriate for all organizations examined in academic or government settings versus stand-alone non-profit or civil society organizations. However, an examination of the 50 selected websites of organizations working to implement One Health and/or framing their projects and purpose in One Health revealed the global One Health movement to be fragmented and uncoordinated. The authors propose to form a more unified voice for One Health across the international One Health movement, a fully networked, informal global One Health alliance or community of practice that can coordinate sharing of information among the networks and with the general public, and that is able to seek synergies and joining of hands in collective/collaborative actions to effectively and efficiently promote and support bottom-up efforts.