The conversations unfolding in Lisbon at the World One Health Congress 2026 felt different from those of that have come before.

Held every two years, the World One Health Congress brings together researchers, policymakers, development partners, donors and technical experts to examine some of the most pressing challenges at the intersection of human, animal and environmental health. This year's gathering attracted more than 1,200 participants from around the world to discuss issues ranging from antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and pandemic preparedness to climate-related health risks and global health security.

What emerged most clearly was a sense that the global One Health movement has entered a new phase. At its core, One Health recognises that the health of people, animals and the environment are interconnected, and that addressing complex risks requires coordinated action across all three. For years, the focus was on building awareness, strengthening multisectoral coordination and developing strategies. Those foundations remain essential. But the conversation has now shifted decisively towards implementation and answering how countries can finance, operationalise and scale it effectively.

That shift was evident throughout discussions with development agencies and banks, multilateral organisations, regional networks and country stakeholders.

Across sessions, participants returned to a common challenge: financing.
One remark captured the mood succinctly: “Technical evidence alone does not secure a place in the national budget.”

It is a reminder that while scientific and technical evidence remains vital, it is rarely sufficient on its own to drive investment decisions. Sustainable progress increasingly depends on building compelling investment cases, demonstrating economic returns and engaging ministries of finance alongside ministries of health, agriculture and environment.

In many ways, this represents a maturation of the One Health agenda. The evidence base is growing. The rationale is widely understood. The challenge now is translating that evidence into funding commitments that can survive political cycles and competing national priorities.

The discussions also reflected a changing financing landscape. While donor support remains important, there was widespread acknowledgement that it cannot meet future financing needs on its own. Declining development budgets and growing competition for limited aid resources are prompting countries and partners to explore more sustainable funding approaches.

Blended finance featured prominently in these conversations. Speakers highlighted models that combine development bank lending, philanthropic funding, domestic resources and private sector investment. The same was found with participants who also discussed innovative mechanisms including impact bonds, debt-for-health swaps, insurance-based approaches, and emerging carbon-health credit models.

For organisations working at the intersection of health, governance and development, these conversations point to a growing need for experts and knowledge that extends beyond technical programme design. The future will increasingly require the ability to connect health outcomes with economic analysis, risk management and investment planning.

Alongside financing, governance emerged as another recurring theme.

Many countries have developed national One Health strategies and established coordination mechanisms. Far fewer have created the institutional arrangements and financing structures needed to put those strategies into practice.

Again and again, participants argued that implementation challenges are often driven less by technical barriers than by gaps in coordination, accountability and political commitment.

One observation stood out: “Don't break sectors. Bridge them.”

The phrase resonated because it recognises a central tension within One Health. Success depends on stronger collaboration between the human, animal and environmental health sectors, while preserving the mandates and strengths that each sector brings. Effective governance is not about merging institutions. It is about helping them work together more effectively.

The conversations around AMR (antimicrobial resistance) reinforced this point.
Increasingly, antimicrobial resistance is being framed not solely as a health issue but as a governance, development and security challenge. Presentations from Africa CDC highlighted persistent gaps in surveillance, costing and financing of National Action Plans for AMR across the continent. At the same time, speakers stressed that maintaining gains from previous investments will require sustained political commitment and greater domestic financing, particularly as reductions in overseas development assistance threaten the continuity of externally funded laboratory, surveillance and workforce strengthening programmes.

Perhaps the most thought-provoking discussions focused on how One Health itself is being framed.

Across sessions on pandemic preparedness, biosecurity, food safety and AMR, speakers increasingly positioned One Health as an investment in national resilience and security. Rather than viewing it solely through a public health lens, participants drew connections to economic stability, supply chain resilience, climate adaptation and national security.

The implications of that framing are significant.

"Resistance, outbreaks and biological threats do not respect borders," one speaker noted. Another suggested that "the health security funding of the future may increasingly come from security budgets."
Whether or not that prediction proves true, the broader message was clear. Positioning One Health as a national resilience issue has the potential to unlock new funding streams and elevate it from a technical agenda to a strategic policy priority.

Leaving Lisbon, I was struck by how much the conversation has evolved. The future of One Health is unlikely to be defined by the development of new strategies. Instead, it will be shaped by our ability to translate evidence into investment and commitments into action.

For organisations like Palladium, that presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Supporting governments and development partners to frame One Health investments not only as health interventions, but also as investments in national security, economic resilience and risk management, could expand the range of financing partners and funding sources available.

The foundations have largely been built. The next chapter will depend on finding practical ways to fund and deliver them.