CABI Blog

A CABI-led study reveals the major funders of OH research, the areas they prioritize, and those left systemically under supported.

One Health (OH) is a holistic approach to addressing health challenges that encompasses human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health in one integrated system. The One Health Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) was formed to help foster international, multidisciplinary collaboration in six priority areas, or action tracks. Countries and institutions coordinate funding for OH research in alignment with wider priorities. These decisions have a global impact, influencing which action tracks receive sustained support and those that inevitably get left behind. 

CABI researchers led the first comprehensive mapping of acknowledged OH funders in peer-reviewed publications spanning from 2014 to 2024. Not only did this reveal the thematic, institutional, and geographic landscape of OH funding; the study also uncovered which research areas are systematically under-supported as a result.

This paper contributes to the One Health Hub’s growing evidence base on One Health funding. “The project team, together with partners such as the STAR-IDAZ IRC Secretariat is building a strong case for why funding mechanisms for One Health need to shift so that they support cross sector partnerships, longer timelines, and more equitable participation across regions and disciplines”  said Dr Dannie Romney, Senior Global Director, Development Communication and Extension at CABI.

“These steps are crucial to translating One Health from theory in practice”.

Screening for acknowledged funders  

Researchers screened 5,488 peer-reviewed publications spanning from 2014 to 2024 using the Dimensions database to match acknowledgments to known funders. Then, a manual validation exercise was conducted to identify potential reasons for missing funding information.

The screening process reveals an important insight into the visibility of OH acknowledged funding: only 42% of publications have identifiable funders. As a result, only 2,283 publications from the original subset were included in the full analysis.

Perhaps the key factor driving this lack of visibility is  an ingrained bias towards high-income countries (HICs), where funding reporting conventions are more consistent and transparent.   Ultimately, publication acknowledgements capture only part of the wider OH funding ecosystem, and the broader OH funding landscape could be larger and more diverse than publication records alone imply. 

Geographic concentrations reveal inequities

Data from the publication acknowledgements were matched to major funders, exposing a systemic leaning towards HICs, so much so that 82% of funders are headquartered there. Moreover, the top six funders of OH research could be found in a small cluster of HICs and upper-middle income countries. The United States was the largest visible funder country, followed by the UK, the EU, Brazil and China. As the only country with a global co-funding footprint, the US maintains its strongest ties with the European Union, home to the most frequently acknowledged funder in the study, the European Commission.

This geographical concentration, centralized within Europe and North America, underscores a power imbalance between the Global North and Global South. Rather than receiving support from domestic scientific budgets and regional funding mechanisms, funding flows from HICs in the Global North to low- and middle-income countries, reinforcing an inequitable balance of leadership and agenda-setting.

The eight funder types

OH-labelled research is supported differently between institutions depending on sectoral priorities and the extent of their leadership.

To clarify the institutional landscape behind OH-labelled research, CABI researchers categorized the 642 identified funders into eight types. These ranged from government ministries to public science funders, philanthropic organisations, and academic institutions. The results disclosed public-sector funders to be the most dominant category, with national research councils and public science funders accounting for the largest share of publications (35%). Combined with government ministries and public agencies (31%), and multilateral organizations (12%), public-sector actors account for nearly 80% of acknowledged OH-funded publications.

Thematic priorities influence One Health activity

Across the share of OH-labelled publications, many were found to cross multiple disciplines. Mapped against the six action tracks of the OH JPA, the core of funded OH-labelled activity was found to be rooted in four priority areas: action track3 (endemic zoonotic, neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases), action track 5 (antimicrobial resistance), action track 2 (emerging and re-emerging zoonotic diseases), and action track 4 (food safety). This is representative of the shared priorities across funders, particularly the scientific, technological, and surveillance-oriented components of OH-labelled research.

Integrating the environment (action track 6) and capacity-building (action track 1) had noticeably smaller coverage in comparison. This reflects how preventive, environmental, and system-strengthening approaches have yet to be embedded proportionately across the funding landscape.

The thematic footprint across all eight funder types was generally broad despite having niche strategic interests and diverse disciplinary portfolios. Multilaterals collectively provide the broadest thematic span of any funder type, with the European Commission standing out with very high numbers of assignments across all six ATs in the dataset.

NGOs and private sector funders, whilst representing the smallest shares of acknowledged publications (2% each), are strategically important contributors to the OH-labelled funding landscape. By providing disciplinary diversity and specialized expertise, they help to fill gaps in research less consistently supported elsewhere.

Recommendations for greater funding equity

Funders have a crucial role in building OH knowledge to address the most pertinent issues affecting human, animal, plant and ecosystem health. From these results several recommendations emerged.

First and foremost, areas that are persistently underrepresented in acknowledged OH research must be met with strengthened investment. This would rebalance portfolios towards prevention, resilience, and long-term risk reduction.

Pandemics pose a significant future risk, as witnessed with COVID-19. Therefore, increased governance and policy related OH research is needed to translate zoonoses findings into implementable action.

Countries operationalize OH research in different capacities, but nevertheless, each one offers valuable insight into OH. That is why addressing the geographical inequities illuminated through this study is essential, particularly through sustained domestic funding mechanisms in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

The narrow geographical concentration of OH funding leaves it open to shifts in national priorities and funding availability. Broadening their bases and expanding co-funding partnerships would generate more resilient and diverse OH research portfolios.

Finally, this study emphasizes the need for greater transparency of funding acknowledgments. This measure would not only benchmark global OH-labelled investment more reliably but also ensure that low-income countries and LMICs are supported as OH leaders on the global stage.

---

Further information

The research described was carried out as part of of the One Health Hub, a CABI-managed project funded by UK international development from the UK Government. The views expressed in this case do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.

Read the report: Mapping the Funders of One Health Research: A Bibliometric Analysis 2014–2024
Read evidence note: Global Patterns in One Health Research Funding

Related news:
Integrated surveillance tops future One Health research priorities
CABI study reveals major inequalities in global One Health research

Featured image:Thorkild Tylleskar / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)