Australia broadly supports the One Health agenda and we appreciate FAO’s efforts, in collaboration with the Quadripartite Organisations, to enhance sustainable agrifood systems in the region. It is imperative that FAO’s One Health programme in the Pacific is cohesive with the Quadripartite’s Joint Plan of Action on One Health, and aims to implement a programme suitable for the specific needs of the region.

We highlight the practical limitations faced by many Members in the Pacific in adopting and implementing One Health. Many have no veterinary capacity and limited public or private animal health workforce. Agricultural sectors are dominated by smallholder farmers, and interventions to improve local animal production are often the most effective way to engage with these producers.

Whilst we welcome FAO’s ongoing commitment to implementing One Health pathways in the Pacific, we note that FAO has limited technical resources of its own in the Pacific, particularly in animal health. There are a number of other mechanisms in the region to support these outcomes, not least the Pacific Community (SPC) which already convenes a One Health group across its 22 member countries. With FAO’s regional work on One Health being focused on strategic awareness raising, we suggest that FAO collaborate more closely with the SPC in delivering education and training to better use regional networks.

The Pacific Heads of Veterinary and Animal Production Services (PHOVAPS) network is the Pacific’s key decision-making structure for building regional animal health, welfare, production and biosecurity. PHOVAPS membership comprises all SPC members, and includes technical partners such as FAO, SPC, WOAH, other relevant regional and national development partners and stakeholders, including Australian and New Zealand reference animal health laboratories.

Australia has provided significant financial and technical support to re-establish the PHOVAPS network since 2021. We suggest that the contributions of PHOVAPS be recognised by FAO. Australia recommends FAO engages with PHOVAPS as a key coordinating mechanism for animal health in the Pacific.

Donor countries, including Australia, make significant contributions to regional One Health efforts and, in instances, may be better placed to deliver practical assistance than FAO. Australia’s Pacific Biosecurity Strategy (2022-2027) reflects our commitment to meet the needs of the region to address pest and disease risks.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry currently has a veterinarian seconded as a One Health Specialist to FAO SAP for a period of three years ending June 2025 to support introduction, uptake and implementation of One Health in the Pacific. We request that this support from Australia is recognised by FAO, similar to references to other partner support.

Coordination between key multilateral partners in the Pacific requires consistent and persistent engagement. We note FAO’s proposal to establish a Pacific Regional One Health network, however there is no mention of the SPC’s existing efforts to do this. Given the already limited resources across the Pacific, the capacity of Members to engage with multiple partner organisations is already largely exhausted and duplication of activities is highly undesirable. We urge FAO to carefully consider how they can best link with and support what SPC and PHOVAPS are already doing to ensure that the best possible results are delivered in the Pacific.

Regarding the guidance requested from the Regional Conference:

• We note that the paper requests APRC to agree that PIC governments engage national One Health coordination committees to develop implementation plans through a whole-of-government approach, with the inclusion of non-government stakeholders.
  • First we query whether this recommendation is appropriate action / within the APRC’s mandate.
  • Second, in order to deliver this outcome, relevant governments would need to overcome significant resource constraints. Given the limited financial and human resources, we suggest prioritisation of achievable actions and tangible outcomes is more realistic and beneficial.
  • We suggest that APRC consider alternate wording where the APRC recognises the benefits of national One Health coordination committees and encourages further engagement between FAO and Pacific Members to understand the specific needs and capabilities in the region, and to work towards tailored and practicable solutions.
• We also note the request to APRC to include a One Health concept ‘in all FAO projects to improve the engagement of relevant ministries and other stakeholders to accelerate agrifood systems transformation in the Pacific Islands region’.
  • Whilst we recognise One Health is an important framework, we are concerned that this recommendation could draw funding away from core and important projects that do not directly align with One Health concept as currently defined by FAO.
  • Australia acknowledges the link between human, animal, plant and environmental health, however aspects of the agrifood system, such as plant health, do not feature significantly in the One Health agenda and we consider that the current definition and implementation of the One Health concept has limited relevance to the plant health community. Accordingly, we suggest that a One Health concept be included for relevant FAO projects in coordination with the Quadripartite organisations.

FAO thanks Australia for the valuable comments and appreciates the sentiments expressed, noting that the paper did not allow for more detailed information and background that the comments refer to.

FAO greatly appreciates and thanks Australia for its continued support through bilateral and multilateral aid channels which enables FAO to deliver much-needed resources and training to the Pacific region. FAO is also grateful for the secondment of an Australian Government veterinarian to the Pacific subregional office, whose expertise in One Health and lived Pacific background and experience resulted in leading the development of this paper.

FAO also recognizes past and continued efforts Australia provides to the Pacific Island region in so many areas of development, including health, biosecurity, food and income security.

FAO continues to work in close collaboration with all Pacific partners, including but not limited to, the Pacific Community (SPC), the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), the Australian Government Departments of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry and Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries, and other relevant United Nations agencies as well as other Quadripartite members. FAO acknowledges that SPC is a vital regional organization with all 22 Pacific Island countries as members, and as such, FAO has and continues to, work closely with SPC.

FAO is aware of farming systems and lack of animal health experts in the Pacific region, having worked in the region for many decades. This is one of the reasons why a One Health approach is beneficial since other resources can be tapped into, for example, public and community health, climate change and environmental resources.

As noted in your comments, FAO is a key PHOVAPS partner, and with the PHOVAPS network reactivated post-COVID, FAO intends to resume active engagement with the network, similar to FAO’s ongoing collaboration with SPC. FAO is grateful for Australian support to enable PHOVAPS to continue its invaluable work.

FAO acknowledges that donor agencies are also active in the Pacific and the intention is that any One Health approach in the Pacific will be a multi‑partner approach. FAO’s intentions are to contribute technical expertise in One Health, through its global networks of expertise and in partnership with regional and donor organizations.

FAO has actively engaged with and supported SPC’s One Health Coordinator through collaboration in FAO’s One Health activities in the Asis-Pacific region. FAO invited SPC to join several One Health subregional workshops and training events to identify Oen Health opportunities in the region and in individual countries.

FAO continues to collaborate with SPC on One Health, currently through the introduction of the Quadripartite Joint Plan of Action for the Pacific subregion. SPC has a Public Health network across its 22 members, not a One Health network. A Pacific One Health network would be a valuable contribution to the region. FAO has been and continues to coordinate with partners to determine the most effective means to achieve this.

FAO, through aid from the United States Agency for International Development and in consultation with SPC and other partners, has started working with the Government of Fiji on a One Health project which could be a potential pathway for national One Health activities that can be adopted by other countries.

The Pacific Island Countries and the region benefit from all donors and partners, as much work needs to be undertaken. FAO recognizes, however, that multilateral coordination remains a challenge for all partners, not just FAO. Efforts continue to eliminate duplication and impost on Pacific Island countries time and resources. FAO remains committed to finding solutions to address these ongoing challenges in close collaboration with regional partners and donors.

FAO notes Australia’s comments regarding the guidance sought from the regional Conference. FAO clarifies that it is envisaged that each country will respond as appropriate to their individual needs and within their resources.

New Zealand thanks the secretariat for the update paper on One Health.

We strongly believe that One Health work must support and enhance the existing systems in the region as One Health is only really a principle and not a system in its own right. One Health should be looking at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of various systems with shared themes and outcomes so that things like reduced duplication of effort and improved information sharing can be accomplished across the overall system.

This includes support for the underpinning systems that already exist in the country/region, e.g. food safety and food supply, before building in the multisectoral component otherwise applying a One Health approach by bringing in more agencies to a weakened system might not make much ground.

We strongly support a ground up approach with Pacific communities taking a lead on the implementation approach that will best suit their communities.  This is the only way a sustainable solution would be developed. The Pacific community, as discussed in the paper, already have an in-depth understanding of the One Health concept through their cultural beliefs.  This is a huge strength, and the support should be based on bolstering their respective systems and the One Health approach through their world view.

From a technical area standpoint, there are some key themes with emergency management and data and information sharing to get a fuller picture of the multifactorial issues they face. Establishing some key frameworks that can be used for multiple systems is more likely to be sustainable not only with restricted resources but by being used more routinely and bedded in. For example if an emergency management framework is established, then this could be used for adverse events, disease outbreaks (both exotic or endemic) or food/ water borne disease issues.

We note that the paper highlights the current lack of data on disease prevalence and transmission in the Pacific Islands region, particularly for the livestock, plant, forestry and fisheries subsectors. We encourage FAO to apply the One Health approach to promote the development of regionally integrated disease surveillance systems to improve response coordination, resilience, and health outcomes.

FAO thanks New Zealand for their valuable comments and support, and the recognition of the Pacific communities’ intrinsic expertise.

FAO recognizes that each country will apply One Health concepts as applicable and appropriate to their individual situations.

FAO agrees that concepts should not be applied for the sake of a One Health approach but rather, to enhance efficiencies and to avoid duplications.

FAO agrees that emergency management and disease surveillance could benefit from a One Health approach and looks forward to working with NZ and other donors and partners to further explore this in the Pacific region.

1. The government of the Philippines has committed to implementing the One Health approach as a crucial strategy to accelerate the transformation of agrifood systems in the Asia-Pacific region. We recognize that the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment are interlinked, and adopting a One Health approach is essential to address the complex challenges that our agrifood systems encounter.

   The Philippines continues to work in close partnership with the Quadripartite Organizations - FAO, WHO, UNEP, and WOAH - to effectively operationalize the One Health Approach Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) in the country. This involves implementing a range of interventions to prevent and control the spread of transboundary animal diseases, as well as conducting public awareness programs to combat antimicrobial resistance and seeking sustainable funding and financing to support these important initiatives.

    

2. The Philippines also recognizes and appreciates the existing initiatives and collaborative efforts of the Quadripartite Organizations in preparing its member countries, to be better at preventing, detecting, and responding to health threats while improving human, animal, plant, and environmental health and contributing to

   sustainable development.

   Hence, we support and endorse the application and implementation of the One Health Concept in the Pacific Island Countries to mitigate threats in their agriculture, forestry, livestock, and fisheries sectors through the establishment of the One Health coordination committees.

3. We align with the recommendation that the national One Health coordination committees in the Pacific Island Countries (PIC) should develop implementation plans, programs, policies, research studies, and resources that are in line with the FAO's Strategic Framework and the four betters.
4. We are committed to working with our partners in the Pacific Island Region to implement this approach and to improve the health of our people, animals, plants, and the environment. The Philippines is open to exchange information with Pacific Island countries regarding effective practices in implementing the One Health approach.
5. May we share for instance the critical importance of addressing microbial pathogens in water, as they pose significant threats to both aquatic biosecurity and the

FAO thanks the Philippines for these comments and congratulates the Government for the successful application of One Health approach.

FAO thanks the Philippines for their support of the general concepts proposed in the paper, made through your own experiences in applying one Health in your country.

FAO is grateful for, and accepts, the Philippines offer to exchange information with Pacific Island countries regarding effective practices in implementing the One Health approach to address AMR, transboundary animal diseases, and microbial pathogens in water. FAO will also convey this offer to our Pacific partners, including SPC.

• Thailand has integrated One Health policy concurrently with memorandum of understanding (MOU) on One Health Policy for National Health Security (One Health) between the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Ministry of Interior Ministry of Social Development and Human Security Ministry of Labor Ministry of Education, Ministry of Public Health and the Thai Red Cross Society since 2016 to consolidate the health sectors of people, animals, wildlife and the environment.

• Policy implementation under the One Health framework that were successful, such as preventive action, control, and monitor potential transmission between animals and people, carrying out animal disease diagnosis to assist surveillance, control and prevention of disease detected in animals, implementation of supervision and promotion of animal production and livestock products that are safe according to food safety principles (Food safety).

• In addition, Thailand has initiate cooperation with collaborative partners both within the country and abroad in strengthening and expand cooperation to improve animal health laboratory capacity and essential knowledge related to animal health, such as personnel development in epidemiology and laboratory front by establishment of a training program for field veterinary epidemiologists and conducting Assessment of the performance of WHO member countries according to the International Health Regulations 2005(IHR 2005) by using the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool.

FAO thanks Kiribati for these comments and provides the following response:

•      FAO will provide technical support that is tailored to suit Kiribati requirements, including One Health initiatives.
•     FAO recommends that Kiribati seeks assistance for veterinarians from Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. who have veterinary volunteer and other programs available in their countries, since FAO is unfortunately unable to assist in this regard.