1. Strengthening ASEAN Regional Coordination of Animal Health and Zoonosis
Nigel Perkins, Team Leader
Gideon Bruckner, Animal Health Expert
Georg Petersen, Human Health Expert
Aide Memoire presentation
ASEAN Secretariat, 9 December 2009

2. Study Background
TADs continue to threaten animal and human health in the region
Coordination of preparedness and response capacity is important for control of TADs
Recent trends and activities
GF-TADs framework
One world – one health
Shift from disease specific to more general focus
HPAI to EID or HPED
Multiple projects/programs have developed regional coordination functions: SEAFMD, EC-HPED, HPAI

3. Study Background
2008: ASWGL recommended independent study team to provide a report to ASEC and AMS on options for regional coordination for animal health and zoonoses
Objectives
1. To assess and present feasible models of regional coordination arrangements for TADs, including Zoonoses, in ASEAN.
2. To explore regional strategies that will enhance the animal health sector’s capacity to more effectively collaborate with the human health sector in addressing emerging and “neglected” zoonotic diseases in ASEAN.

4. Study Team Dr Gideon Bruckner Dr Georg Petersen Dr Nigel Perkins
funded by OIE and FAO
Animal Health Expert
Dr Georg Petersen
funded by European Commission
Human Health Expert
Dr Nigel Perkins
funded by AusAID
Team Leader

5. Activities Initial team meeting in Shanghai on 15 November 2009
26th Conference of the OIE Regional Commission for Asia, the Far East and Oceania in Shanghai
16 to 21 November 2009
Jakarta – ASEC (2 days)
Manila – Philippines BAI, WHO, ADB, ACB (2 days)
Bangkok – SEAFMD, FAO, SEAFDEC, AusAID, MBDS (4 days)
Jakarta – GF-TADs, WHO, ASEC
Aide Memoire: 9 December 2009
Study team departs to head home: 9 December 2009
Draft report: 19 January 2010
Final report: 5 March 2010
Team leader may attend ASWGL meeting in May 2010

6. Findings: summary of key issues
Terminology:
RCM = Regional Coordinating Mechanism
used to refer to the future structure that might be developed
MS = Member States
Countries that have signed to be a part of the RCM
Could be either ASEAN Member States (AMS) or countries that are not members of ASEAN.

7. Findings: summary of key issues
Ownership by MS
very important for all stakeholders
covers name of RCM, governance, structure, funding
Geographic coverage
has to include both AMS and non-AMS
Quality of governance
critical for:
effective function
engaging donors and int'l agencies

8. Findings: summary of key issues
Location
Single physical structure
Hosted by one of the MS
Not located within the Secretariat but with strong links to ASEAN
Location dependent on:
central to MS, infrastructure (transport, power, internet, accommodation etc)
proximity to other stakeholders (FAO, OIE, WHO, donors,…)
support from host country

9. Findings: summary of key issues
Funding
All MS should contribute support to RCM
Some countries may provide more support: host country, variable contributions
Likely to require additional support for activities and perhaps salaries (donors, international agencies)
Trust fund
AAHTF: useful but seems likely to require changes to guidelines and conditions

10. Findings: summary of key issues
Structure and function
Single RCM capable of providing coordination for multiple diseases
vertical and horizontal activities
Minimise duplication
Maximise efficiency
Maximise visibility and recognition
for Members and for int'l agencies and donors
Scope of activities
Regional coordination activities are well defined (GF-TADs, SEAFMD, …)
Review existing mechanisms

11. Findings: summary of key issues
Relationship with other units
Long-term intent is to have a single RCM
coordination activities from other units would be expected to move into the RCM
SEAFMD, HPAI
EC HPED Program - RSU in FAO offices in Bangkok under GF-TADs framework
One option is to use this as the basis for a MS-owned RCM and have a staged transition
RSU
under EC-HPED
MS-owned
RCM
GF-TADs node

12. Findings: summary of key issues
Relationship to GF-TADs
GF-TADs is a critical framework at Global and Regional (Tokyo) levels for engaging with stakeholders
regional for GF-TADs means Asia-Pacific
sub-regional for GF-TADs refers to ASEAN
within ASEAN the term regional means operating at the level of ASEAN or for multiple MSs
Any RCM must be recognised as a node under GF-TADs (equivalent to a RSU)
The intent is to create a MS-owned mechanism that operates at the regional level and that is recognised as a GF-TADs node

13. Findings: summary of key issues
Link to ASEC (for AMS)
Official recognition/endorsement by ASEAN
Involvement of ASEC in RCM meetings
Pathway through AINR, SOM-AMAF and AMAF for moving technical output from RCM into policy and regional decisions
Other pathways may also be important
from RCM through MS departments to policy
Engaging CVOs
CVO level delegates for major RCM meetings
high-level technical input
strength of output in influencing decisions & policy

14. Findings: summary of key issues
Collaboration: Animal – Human
all AMS have linkages between animal and human sectors at national level
some more formal/effective than others
Animal health is relatively weaker than human health (resources, staffing, policy influence)
Strengthening of animal health is critical
for control of TADs
for better collaboration between animal and human sectors

15. Findings: summary of key issues
Collaboration: Animal – Human
ASEC: good linkages
between divisions
Working groups on one health and PPR
EID Phase 2
sustainability of PFS is uncertain
Agreement for joint collaboration between sectors
important framework for collaboration
Collaboration needs a framework that is flexible and not necessarily a rigid schedule and structure

16. Findings: summary of key issues
Collaboration: Animal – Human
A future RCM
should include cross-sector linkages
involvement of human and animal health on steering committees
framework to enhance collaboration for some diseases or issues as needs arise

17. Summary – a future RCM AMS and non-AMS
Single mechanism, hosted by one country
covers multiple diseases & activities
MS-owned
implications for name, funding, governance,…
Minimise duplication, maximise efficiency
High awareness – regionally and internationally
Engage high-level MS delegates
effective outputs (function, policy) and engagement with donors and int'l agencies
Staged implementation
transition from EC-HPED to RCM
move other coordination activities into RCM

18. Acknowledgements Thank you ASEAN Secretariat AusAID, AusAID-HRF
FAO and OIE EC
All people consulted have very willingly provided time and opinions
Thank you