The fifth pillar of PREZODE’s Strategic Agenda and Research Framework focuses on engaging stakeholders and co-designing One Health networks and policies. This is also the focus of the joint WOAH–PREZODE Working Group. We spoke with Dr Chadia Wannous, Head of the One Health and Global Frameworks Department at WOAH, about the group’s objectives, initial activities and next steps.
The PREZODE–WOAH joint working group was established in April 2026. Can you remind us of its overall objective?
The working group was established to bring together PREZODE’s scientific and research expertise and WOAH’s international policy networks and experience in animal health and One Health. Our overarching objective is to strengthen the science–policy interface and help ensure that scientific evidence translates into informed policy decisions and concrete action.
Despite growing recognition of the importance of One Health, significant gaps remain between the knowledge generated by research and its uptake in policies, governance arrangements and implementation at country level. Scientific evidence does not automatically translate into policy change. Effective mechanisms are needed to bring scientists, policymakers, practitioners and communities together, build mutual understanding and trust, and ensure that evidence responds to real policy and implementation needs.
The working group therefore focuses on several complementary objectives: translating One Health research into actionable recommendations; promoting the integration of One Health into relevant policies and frameworks; strengthening national capacities and governance arrangements; and facilitating inclusive dialogue among scientists, policymakers, practitioners and communities. We also aim to identify ways to sustain these mechanisms over time, including through appropriate financing, monitoring and the use of digital tools to facilitate access to evidence and knowledge.
Ultimately, we want to help make science–policy dialogue a more systematic and integral part of One Health decision-making, rather than an occasional exchange between researchers and policymakers.
How does the group work?
The working group brings together 38 members, including Dr Marisa Peyre and myself as co-chairs. Its membership reflects a range of scientific disciplines, professional backgrounds and institutional perspectives. This diversity is important because effective One Health science–policy dialogue requires contributions from across human, animal and environmental health, as well as from social sciences, governance and other relevant fields. Our approach is collaborative and practical. The group’s initial work focused on defining its scope and objectives, mapping existing science–policy dialogue mechanisms and identifying opportunities to build on ongoing initiatives and avoid duplication. This helped establish the foundations for a common work plan and identify areas where the group could add value. We meet monthly to exchange experiences, review progress, and advance the agreed activities. The intention is not to create another parallel platform, but to connect existing expertise and initiatives, identify lessons that can be shared, and develop practical approaches that can be adapted to different national and institutional contexts.
The value of science–policy dialogue lies in its contribution to better decisions and more effective action.
What were its first activities?
During its first months, the working group focused on understanding what makes One Health science–policy dialogue effective and sustainable in practice. We consulted experts to explore several key questions: How can dialogue between science and policy be established and maintained? How can it be institutionalized so that it informs decision-making beyond individual projects or events? What governance arrangements, capacities and resources are needed to sustain it?
In parallel, we started consolidating case studies and practical experiences shared by members and partners. These provide an important opportunity to learn from approaches implemented at different levels. At community level, examples include community animal health worker programmes in Senegal, Zimbabwe and Nepal. At national level, we are drawing on experiences from Vietnam and Bangladesh. We are also considering regional and international experiences, including initiatives in Central Africa and between Thailand and Laos.
The exchanges and case studies presented during the World One Health Congress in Lisbon and the FAO Global Conference on One Health in Agrifood Systems in Rome have also contributed to this work. They have helped highlight the importance of connecting scientific knowledge with the realities faced by policymakers, veterinary services, public health authorities, communities and other stakeholders. An important lesson emerging from these experiences is that effective science–policy dialogue needs to be embedded in existing institutional and governance processes. It also needs to be inclusive and context-specific, recognizing the contributions of different sectors and stakeholders, including those working at community level. We are now bringing these experiences together to identify common enabling factors, challenges and approaches that can inform practical guidance.
What are the next steps?
Our next major objective is to develop a handbook providing practical guidance on establishing and strengthening effective One Health science–policy dialogue mechanisms. The handbook will draw on the expert consultations, case studies and experiences collected by the working group. It will seek to identify the conditions that enable dialogue to move beyond information exchange towards meaningful contributions to policy development and implementation. Several elements will be particularly important: effective One Health governance and coordination arrangements; clear roles and accountability; trust-building between scientific and policy communities; meaningful engagement of relevant stakeholders and communities; and sustainable financing. We also need to recognize that there is no single model that can be applied everywhere. Mechanisms must be adapted to national contexts, institutional capacities and existing governance structures.
Beyond the development of the handbook, our longer-term ambition is to support countries in identifying institutional pathways to embed science–policy dialogue within their national One Health governance arrangements. This means ensuring that evidence and expertise from animal health, human health and the environment can regularly inform policy priorities, planning and implementation.
Ultimately, the value of science–policy dialogue lies in its contribution to better decisions and more effective action. By connecting research, policy and practice, we hope this work will help strengthen One Health governance and support countries in translating the One Health approach into sustainable action.