Global governance of pandemic prevention from the wildlife trade: A perspective from governance entrepreneurs and practitioners

Technical Summary: Global Governance of Pandemic Prevention from the Wildlife Trade

Problem Statement
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic exposed critical deficits in global governance for pandemic prevention, specifically highlighting a paradigmatic failure to shift from downstream response to upstream prevention of zoonotic spillover. While the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted a Pandemic Agreement in 2025 to address global health governance gaps, the authors argue it failed to realize its full potential regarding operationalizable strategies for preventing spillover from the wildlife trade. The existing governance landscape is characterized by "regime complexity" and "sectoral fragmentation," where distinct policy sectors (human health, animal health, biodiversity conservation, food security, and trade) operate in silos without a supranational body to coordinate them. Consequently, there is a lack of theoretically informed, empirical analysis regarding the perspectives of "governance entrepreneurs" and practitioners on feasible, real-world governance responses to mitigate pandemic risks arising from the wildlife trade for human consumption.

Methodology
This study employs a single-case study design utilizing a mixed-methods approach to analyze the perspectives of global governance entrepreneurs and practitioners.

• Data Collection: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 key informants (KIs) between June 2021 and September 2022. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling, representing six policy sectors (animal health, biodiversity conservation, food security, human health, international trade, and One Health) and four actor types (intergovernmental organizations, treaty secretariats, NGOs, and research institutions). Additionally, 73 documents referred to by KIs were reviewed.
• Data Analysis: The study utilized a hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis. A preliminary codebook was developed based on a scoping review and theoretical frameworks (nexus governance and regime complex theory).
  • Qualitative: 255 initial quotes were screened against inclusion/exclusion criteria, resulting in 52 final quotes (44 from interviews, 8 from documents) that contained actionable, tangible recommendations with specific institutional mechanisms. These were coded into four discursive policy positions: (1) wildlife trade bans, (2) improved use of existing institutional arrangements, (3) reform of existing arrangements, and (4) creation of brand-new arrangements.
  • Quantitative: Descriptive statistics, Alluvial diagrams, and network graphs were generated to visualize the frequency of code applications, the flow of opportunities/constraints, and the degree centrality of policy sectors in coordination recommendations.

Key Contributions and Results
The analysis reveals that governance entrepreneurs and practitioners prioritize strengthening coordination across policy sectors and reforming existing institutions over creating entirely new bodies or implementing blanket bans.

1. Policy Positions and Frequency:

   • Wildlife Trade Bans: This was the most frequently discussed position (51% of code applications). However, it was predominantly associated with constraints, particularly regarding livelihood impacts on Indigenous and local communities, the risk of driving trade into unregulated underground economies, and the lack of evidence regarding causality for specific spillover pathways.
   • Reform of Existing Arrangements: Discussed second most frequently (34%). The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) was identified as the primary candidate for reform, specifically to expand its mandate to include the wildlife trade, leveraging its recognition under the WTO's SPS Agreement. Reform of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to include animal health conditions was also proposed but viewed as facing significant political and resource hurdles.
   • Improved Use of Existing Arrangements: Discussed less frequently (4%) but viewed as highly feasible. Recommendations focused on harmonizing siloed systems (e.g., integrating wildlife trade standards into the Codex Alimentarius) and enhancing existing collaborations (e.g., between WOAH, CITES, and the CBD).
   • Brand-New Institutional Arrangements: Discussed least (11%). KIs expressed concern that new permanent bodies could exacerbate fragmentation and resource competition. Instead, a coordinating mechanism, such as an intergovernmental panel on pandemic risk (similar to the IPCC), was proposed as a flexible alternative.

2. Sectoral Coordination and Nexus Governance:

   • The results indicate a strong consensus on the need for "nexus governance" to achieve policy coherence and address sectoral fragmentation.
   • Biodiversity Conservation emerged as the most critical sector for integration (degree centrality = 1), followed by Animal Health (degree centrality = 0.6). The link between these two sectors was identified as the strongest area requiring improved coordination.
   • Recommendations emphasized that the Quadripartite Collaboration for One Health (FAO, UNEP, WHO, WOAH) should be expanded to include CITES and the CBD to better operationalize One Health principles at the international level.

3. Constraints and Opportunities:

   • Constraints: Key barriers include insufficient funding and human resources, power dynamics between states, enforcement deficits, and the "second-order collective action problem" of diverting resources from existing technical work to new administrative structures.
   • Opportunities: Feasible pathways include expanding WOAH's mandate, creating joint committees (e.g., WHO-WOAH-CITES), and utilizing active feedback loops (working groups) to enhance institutional reflexivity and knowledge sharing.

Significance and Claims
The paper claims that its primary significance lies in providing a theoretically grounded, empirical analysis of governance solutions from the perspective of those who implement and influence global health policy. It argues that:

• Pragmatism over Panaceas: Blanket bans on wildlife trade are unlikely to be effective or feasible due to unintended consequences and political realities. Instead, balanced, context-specific regulations that integrate human rights and livelihood considerations are necessary.
• Institutional Reform is Paramount: The most viable path forward involves reforming and better coordinating existing institutions (particularly WOAH and CITES) rather than fragmenting the regime complex further with new bodies.
• Addressing Governance Gaps: The study highlights that the recently adopted WHO Pandemic Agreement leaves significant gaps regarding upstream prevention. The authors assert that a renewed research agenda focusing on shared governance pathways and the integration of biodiversity conservation into pandemic prevention is paramount to addressing these deficits.
• Theoretical Application: The paper demonstrates the utility of "nexus governance" and "regime complex" theories in diagnosing the fragmentation of global health governance and identifying relational structures that can facilitate cooperation across policy silos.

The authors conclude that while the global governance regime complex presents challenges, a coordinated, multisectoral approach that leverages existing institutional strengths offers the most pragmatic route to preventing future zoonotic pandemics.