PHM-Exch> DGH Letter to Geneva Missions on WHO Briefing of 15th September

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: Jo Kreysler <jokreysler at hotmail.com>

*From:* Ina VERZIVOLLI [mailto:ina.verzivolli at gifa.org]


*Democratising Global Health Coalition*



Aware of the upcoming briefing on the progress of the WHO reform process and
related documents, we would like to share with you the perspective of a
large group of public-interest NGOs and other concerned citizens, the
Democratising Global Health Coalition (DGH,
www.democratisingglobalhealth.org).

The coalition is following the reform process as closely as feasible and is
facilitating, to the extent possible, a dialogue among the public interest
groups aimed at developing constructive and realistic proposals. It is in
this spirit that DGH sent you a letter on 30th June 2011 and is sending
letters to all WHO Regional Committee meetings (see both letters attached to
this email). These present the DGH coalition’s comments on the concept
papers prepared by the WHO Secretariat and expressed concerns related to
some of the proposals contained in these documents, as well as suggestions
for moving forward.



We have now had the opportunity of looking at the latest *Preview Paper* *on
the WHO Managerial Reforms, *which further reinforces our serious concerns
about the direction this process is taking. None of our earlier proposals
have made their way into the Secretariat’s papers on reform. Thus, we feel
compelled to call upon you as Members States, the legitimate political voice
in the World Health Organization, to reiterate our major remarks:

 1. *The rationale of the WHO reform has yet to be established, based on a
solid, in-depth situation analysis to justify it*

The reform was introduced through considerations on financial difficulties
and prospects for future financing of the agency. Alarmingly enough, as of
today, not one single document has yet been made available by the
Secretariat on WHO’s  financing, i.e. the root causes of the current
situation, present constraints, limitations of the system, opportunities for
potential savings and ideas for future sustainable funding.  Can this ever
be considered a serious approach on which to found and justify a reform?

 2.  *Far beyond a managerial reform, what you are dealing with today is a
major political and strategic move.* This reform must be placed in the
context of a globalised economy, the current financial crisis and the need
for reasserting WHO as *the* leading intergovernmental agency for health.

 3. *The risk of the proposals currently put forward is that they undermine,
rather than reinforce, WHO’s constitutional mandate*, further diluting the
right to health perspective by opening the door to private and corporate
for-profit entities to take part into policy setting on global health.
Giving more influence to private for-profit actors in international public
health decision-making processes runs counter basic democratic principles.

 4. *The unprecedented speed of the reform process*, coupled with its
opacity and the lack of participation by the public health community, makes
it practically impossible even for Member States to follow the route with
any real ownership and capacity to contribute. Yet, it is precisely the
Member States - the legitimate constituency of WHO – who should drive the
entire process.

 5. In addition to impairing proper governmental guidance and contributions,
*the current WHO reform further suffers from the exclusion of
public-interest members of the civil society*, the ones who seem to have
taken this initiative with the serious attention it deserves.

 At this stage of the process we urge you, as representatives of the people
of your countries, to measure the quality and relevance of the Secretariat’s
proposals against the WHO constitutional mandate:

Do any of the proposed changes enhance WHO's objective to work for the
"attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health"?
(Article 1)

Do they enhance or undermine WHO's function to "act as the directing and
co-ordinating authority on international health work"? (Art. 2.a)

Do they enhance or undermine WHO's role as regulatory and standard setting
body in international health matters? (Art. 2. k and u)

We appeal to you to kindly ensure that any changes proposed to the ways in
which WHO functions and is financed are truly a contribution towards making
global governance for health democratic and accountable. They must not lead
to more plutocratic global health decision making and to the erosion of
peoples' universal human right to health.

 We thank you for your attention and look forward to future dialogue with
you on these issues and beyond.

*Democratising Global Health Coalition (DGH)*

*CHESTRAD International, Global*

*Community Working Group on Health (CWGH), Zimbabwe*

*Declaration de Berne, Switzerland*

*Health Action Information Network (HAIN), Philippines*

*Health Action International, Global*

*Health Innovation in Practice (HIP), Switzerland*

*International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), Global*

*Justicia, Salud & Desarrollo, PHM-IBFAN, Bolivia*

*Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), Global*

*Medico International, Germany*

*Medicus Mundi International Network (MMI), Global*

*Partners in Health, USA*

*People’s Health Movement (PHM), Global*

*People’s Health Movement, India*

*Prayas, India*

*Third World Network (TWN), Global*

*Wemos, Holland*

*World Council of Churches, Global*

*World Social Forum on Health and Social Security, Brasil*

*Individual support*

*German Velasquez, South Centre, Geneva*

*Slim Slama, Geneva Health Forum, Geneva*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20110917/203e26b5/attachment.html>