The cornerstone of regional plans to confront EIDs is the Asia Pacific Strategy for Emerging Diseases (APSED) (World Health Organization 2010; World Health Organization, Western Pacific Region 2010). This is essentially a “health security” construct aiming to strengthen national systems to comply with the legal requirements of the International Health Regulations (2005) (World Health Organization 2005) and to improve national capacity to combat EIDs. The latest iteration of the strategy (2010) drew heavily on the lessons learned from the 2009 pandemic of influenza A/H1N1 and allows countries flexibility to decide how they can best achieve the vision of the eight areas of focus: (1) surveillance, risk assessment, and response; (2) laboratories; (3) zoonoses; (4) infection prevention and control; (5) risk communications; (6) public health emergency preparedness; (7) regional preparedness, alert, and response; and (8) monitoring and evaluation. The Emerging Disease Surveillance and Response unit of the WHO is responsible for assisting countries to implement APSED. APSED is not a One Health vision, however, lacking the synergies between all sectors whose activities impact on health.

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) considers emerging diseases to be of high importance because of their preventability and the substantial direct (e.g., treatment and hospitalizations) and indirect (e.g., lost time to work, trade sanctions) costs that such diseases have caused to their 21 members states in recent years. Since 1996, APEC has supported the APEC Emerging Infections Network (APEC EINet 2012), a network that seeks to gather and disseminate notifications of EIDs affecting APEC member states, foster collaborations among academic institutes, government, and business where they relate to EIDs, and enhance regional biopreparedness. This mechanism is useful for dialog between sectors beyond just the animal and human health sectors, although the degree of communication and idea sharing does not approach the transdisciplinarity advocated by most One Health proponents.

Nonetheless, APEC did fund the Technology Foresight Project (2006–2007) (The APEC Center for Technology Foresight National Science and Development Technology Agency 2008; Damrongchai et al. 2010), a succinct effort in transdisciplinarity that brought together a range of experts from policy makers and technology developers to virologists and economists to map the convergence of new technologies and the opportunities for their accelerated development in order to limit the human and financial impact of novel diseases. While narrowly focused on the technological aspects of disease prevention and control, and a project rather than an ongoing, inbuilt process, this work encompassed the development of new vaccines, treatments, diagnostics, models and simulations, and tracking strategies for people and animals.

APEC have since drafted a One Health Action Plan (Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation 2011) setting out a common “vision” for member states to operationalize One Health approaches according to their capacities and level of engagement with the concept. The plan aims to strengthen cross-sectoral efforts at the political and leadership level, in teaching and training, in (government) functions to prevent, investigate, respond and control diseases, and across borders. The community is identified as a critical partner in disease prevention and control, and action to ensure the sustainability of cross-sectoral approaches is called for.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has defined a roadmap to prevent, control, and eradicate highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and other highly pathogenic emerging diseases among member states by 2020 using a risk-based approach to address the major transmission pathways in each country (ASEAN Secretariat 2010a). The roadmap describes itself as a “translation” of the One Health approach to systematically eradicate HPAI, while simultaneously addressing other transboundary and zoonotic diseases. While the focus is on animal health and production, the advantages of engaging with multiple disciplines, multiple sectors, and multiple agencies are noted.

This is an encouraging output from ASEAN, but is one of the few documented instances of ASEAN activities related to One Health, either in progress or completed. Furthermore, the emphasis on HPAI rather than a broader One Health approach potentially misses an opportunity to embrace a wider notion of health including the role of wildlife, the integration of resources from various health and nonhealth authorities, as well as concrete plans for regular communication across health and related disciplines. ASEAN is in a unique position to be the premier institution in Asia coordinating, influencing, and even governing to some degree an integrated One Health approach for part of the Western Pacific Region. The HPAI roadmap is a step in the right direction but much remains to be done if ASEAN is to be a One Health leader. ASEAN’s biggest challenge may be the reluctance of member nations to advise on what others should be doing. This is, however, a requirement for an integrated One Health network to be effective among the member states.

The ASEAN Plus Three EIDs Programme has improved joint country investigations of disease outbreaks and developed a regional risk communication strategy (ASEAN Secretariat 2010b). A new program funded by the Japanese Government is directed at improving laboratory capacity and networking (ASEAN Secretariat 2009), continuing a long and successful history of Japanese funding to develop diagnostic and research laboratory capabilities in the region.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Regional Strategy for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza and other EIDs of Animals in Asia and the Pacific, 2010–2015 (Emergency Centre For Transboundary Animal Diseases 2010) outlines a common approach for dealing with endemic HPAI and for addressing emerging and re-emerging diseases. The strategy also aims to join up the fragmented support provided by various partners and donor agencies within the region. This is the latest in a series of initiatives led by FAO and its partners to combat HPAI since the first outbreaks in Southeast Asia, initiatives that were themselves preceded by other efforts founded in One Health concepts including the FAO Emergency Prevention System (EMPRES) and the Global Framework for the Progressive Control of Transboundary Animal Diseases (GF-TADs).

Most of the major Pacific Basin donors have made significant contributions to initiatives to address emerging diseases. The Public Health Agency of Canada leads the Canada–Asia Regional Emerging Infectious Disease (CAREID) Project aiming to strengthen the capacity of Cambodia, Laos PDR, the Philippines, and Vietnam to detect and respond to emerging diseases (Public Health Agency of Canada 2012). Similarly, the Australian Government’s international development assistance agency has articulated a regional strategy for strengthening health systems to respond more generally to EIDs: the Pandemics and EIDs Framework 2010–2015 (AusAID 2010). The Asian Development Bank has implemented a series of communicable diseases control projects along borders in the Greater Mekong region to improve community surveillance of endemic and epidemic diseases including EIDs (Asian Development Bank 2012). And the USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats Program (U.S. Agency for International Development 2010) operates globally with specific activities related to four project areas in Southeast Asia: wildlife pathogen detection, risk determination and reduction, outbreak response capacity, and institutionalization of a One Health approach. This last element is elaborated on in the next section (Academic Initiatives).