Understanding the dimensions and gaps in wildlife health surveillance for zoonotic risk management

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 2 of this Preprint. You must log in to post a comment. There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 2 of this Preprint. Add a Comment You must log in to post a comment. Comments There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. Following the Covid 19 pandemic, One Health has been a topic of increasing global awareness, with the development of various global strategies and action plans to manage and counteract risks as well as identify potential risks. However, despite these 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 between non-human animals and humans. 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 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 spillover into the future. We find that regulations around One Health 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 those with the strictest entry requirements, virtually no systematised monitoring of wildlife health is in place, and standards around recording of ecological parameters are entirely absent. As a consequence, despite ambitious plans around health, major gaps still exist, with little evidence of concerted efforts to reconcile these gaps. https://doi.org/10.32942/X2X66B Agriculture, Biodiversity, Immunology and Infectious Disease Spillover; One Health; Biosecurity; Biodiversity; Biosurveillance Published: 2026-01-23 19:40 Last Updated: 2026-01-25 17:39 CC-BY Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Conflict of interest statement: none Data and Code Availability Statement: provided on request as supplements Language: English