Assessing the legal framework for One Health in zoonotic disease prevention, preparedness, and response in Kazakhstan

Background One Health provides a multisectoral framework for prevention, preparedness, and response at the human-animal-environment interface. Kazakhstan has strengthened legislation across public health, veterinary medicine, biological safety, civil protection, and environmental regulation, but the extent to which these instruments collectively support One Health functions has not been systematically mapped. Methods We conducted a structured analysis of binding instruments relevant to zoonotic threats. Twenty-two active instruments were mapped; 17 entered the synthesis, and six underwent structured comparison. A 20-indicator framework derived from World Health Organization and Quadripartite benchmarks informed four domains: One Health mandates, prevention-preparedness-response functions, governance/accountability, and international alignment. The study assessed legal texts rather than implementation in practice. Results The analysis identified substantial legal provisions for surveillance, source control, quarantine, biosafety, outbreak investigation, and disease-specific intersectoral monitoring. Among the six core instruments, prevention-preparedness-response functions were most explicitly codified, whereas governance/accountability arrangements were less consistently explicit. The Law on Biological Safety received the highest score on the study-specific integration index (100%), followed by the infectious-disease sanitary rules and joint brucellosis monitoring order (87.5% each). Standing coordination, multi-hazard surveillance, standardized joint risk assessment, and routine environmental linkages were less. Conclusions Kazakhstan has established a substantial legal foundation for One Health-related action and continues to strengthen multisectoral cooperation. Further gains may arise from connecting existing sectoral strengths through durable coordination, interoperable information exchange, joint risk assessment, and workforce arrangements. The findings concern formal legal enablement and do not assess institutional performance or implementation outcomes.