PHM-Exch> Overhaul needed on rules on WHO-NGOs relationship

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: Sangeeta <sangeeta at twnetwork.org>


Apart from the antiquated rules that govern this relationship....and thus in
need of reform...another issue that is most problematic is WHO's scrutiny
and censorship of NGO statements. To make statements, the text must be
submitted at least 24 hours before delivery. This text will then be
scrutinized for its length (max 300 words) and content. The Secretariat may
also ask you to change the content or to delete some sections. They may
also deny the right to make the intervention.
None of these practises are seen in other UN bodies, where accredited NGOs
are free to speak up without any form of censorship.  The
above requirements are not part of the rules that govern WHO-NGO
relationship and yet they are practised by the Secretariat.
We hope that this will change as part of the WHO reform and that NGOs will
not be subjected to such practices and will have the freedom to speak up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues
19 January 2012
Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg

*WHO: Overhaul needed on rules on NGOs' relationship
*
  The World Health Organisation's executive body meeting in Geneva this
week is expected to take important decisions on the organisation's
relationship with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that may include
overhauling the current antiquated principles.

WHO's relationship with NGOs has been a controversial issue for more
than a decade. Criticisms include antiquated rules governing WHO-NGO
relationship with complicated and onerous procedures to enter into
official relations with WHO, which fail to distinguish between public
interest NGOs (PINGOs) and business interest NGOs (BINGOs); scrutiny
and censorship of NGO statements prior to delivery; inadequate
conflicts of interest safeguards; lack of space and opportunity to
organize events (e. g., during the annual World Health Assembly); or to
interact with the Secretariat and WHO member states.

[In recent years, the WHO Secretariat has suspended NGOs' privilege or
made it difficult for NGOs to hold technical briefings during the
World Health Assembly.]

There were some attempts to overhaul this relationship following the
launch of the "Civil Society Initiative" (CSI) in 2001 by Dr. Gro
Harlem Brundtland, then WHO Director-General. However, the Initiative
had little success as key recommendations emerging from a thorough
review of WHO-NGO relationship (2002 Review report) never made it past WHO
member states, and thus remains in a coma, ignored and
unimplemented.

The topic has however resurfaced and is now on the agenda of the WHO
Executive Board (EB).

[This decision of the EBSS was arrived at following numerous
objections against the Director General's proposal to convene
multi-stakeholder forums such as the World Health Forum as a method of
promoting WHO's engagement with stakeholders.]

The lack of suitable guidelines on WHO-NGO relationship is only one
part of the problem. Over the years significant concerns have also
been raised over the lack of appropriate policies guiding WHO's
interaction with the private, for-profit sector, as well as
not-for-profit philanthropic organizations, particularly the
inadequacy of WHO conflicts of interest policy and the need for more
oversight of the numerous partnerships with WHO engagement.

The WHO Secretariat has put forward two proposals for the
consideration of member states:

(a) "To review and update the principles governing WHO's relations
with non-governmental organizations. The review will consider (i)
widening and improving the modalities for the participation of
non-governmental organizations at regional and global governing body
meetings; (ii) seeking the views of non-governmental organizations in
the development of new health policies and strategies; (iii) updating
practices and criteria for accreditation. In relation to the last
point, the review will consider ways of differentiating between the
different types of non-governmental organizations that interact with
WHO".

(b) "To develop comprehensive policy frameworks to guide interaction
with the private, for-profit as well as not-for-profit philanthropic
organizations. The proposed frameworks should, inter-alia, tackle the
issue of institutional conflicts of interests."

The Secretariat is also proposing that the EB have greater oversight
of partnerships, further adding that the EB can establish a
dialogue with formal partnerships.

To fully tackle these valid concerns, the various
deficiencies and gaps in the Secretariat proposals need to be
addressed.

1987 PRINCIPLES GOVERNING WHO'S RELATIONS WITH NGOS

These 1987 principles constitute the current legal basis for all
aspects of relations between WHO and NGOs including criteria and
procedure for admission of NGOs in official relations with WHO and
privileges conferred on NGOs. They also define WHO interactions with
NGOs to be formal (official relations) or informal.

To be in official relations, NGOs need to establish a joint programme
of work and a 3-year plan with a technical department of WHO, with
technical WHO officers appointed as the focal points for such
collaboration. A review process of these relations is based on 3-year
reports and the drawing up of new work plans.

Admittance into official relations is authorized by a formal decision
at the EB. Regional offices use the list of NGOs in official relations
to invite participation at regional meetings. NGOs in official
relations are accorded the privilege of participating in WHO meetings
and the right to make a statement.

As of July 2002, there were 189 NGOs in official relations with WHO
while all other relations with NGOs are considered informal, thus not
entitled to privileges accorded to the former. The data available as
of February 2002 suggests that out of the 482 established relations
with WHO, 45% were with NGOs in official relations while 55% of the
NGOs were not in official relations.

Thus, while interaction, consultation and cooperation with NGOs is
clearly encouraged by the WHO Constitution in Articles 2(h), Art. 33,
Art. 71, and Art. 18(h), antiquated principles have created obstacles
to effective WHO-NGO relationship and NGO participation in WHO
governing bodies.

2002 REVIEW REPORT AND 2003/4 PROPOSED POLICY

  A Review process was carried out through a desk review of documents
and a process of consultations during the period July 2001-July 2002.

The Review highlighted a number of deficiencies:

(a) The Principles do not provide guidance to distinguish between
public interest NGOs and those linked to commercial interests.

(b) Insufficient safeguards on conflicts of interests.

(c) The Principles contain lengthy, complicated, onerous, rigid and
overly bureaucratic procedures for NGOs to gain the status of
"official relations".

(d) Imbalance between participation of organizations from North/West
and South/East.

(e) Lack of access to and transparency about WHO processes at the
Geneva headquarters, regional and country level.

(f) The link between NGO in relation and WHO is between 2 individuals
i. e. between the WHO and NGO focal points, which can be broken during
a turnover of WHO.

(g) The Principles have no formal requirement to analyse and make
public the information received on NGOs. e. g. knowledge about the
sponsors and the interest groups behind individual NGOs.

(h) Lack of participation of NGOs not in official relations.

(i) Existing Principles do not offer the needed managerial and policy
guidance for WHO staff interacting with NGOs at headquarters, regional
and country level.

The new policy was also proposed to consist of the following:

(a) An Accreditation Policy: The Report proposed that unlike the present
system, accreditation would not be conditional on working relations
with the Secretariat.

(b) A Collaboration Policy: to enhance general interactions between
the WHO Secretariat and NGOs.

Following the review a new policy was discussed and presented to the
2003/4 WHA but never made it past WHO member states.

The policy did not adequately address the key concerns especially
distinguishing between public interest, non-profit entities and those
representing commercial interests, as well as sufficient safeguards against
conflicts of interests.

MOVING AHEAD WITH SECRETARIAT PROPOSALS

The Secretariat proposal on WHO-NGO relationship does not go far
enough. A decision taken on this matter needs to develop a policy for
accreditation (which is not conditional on NGOs having working relations
with WHO) and another for distinguishing between different kinds of NGOs
and their related interests.

There should also be a decision point that eliminates the practice of
scrutiny and censorship of NGO statements by the Secretariat prior to
delivery.  NGOs must also be afforded sufficient space and
opportunity to hold side events, for example, during the WHA.

With regard to private for-profit organizations and not-for-profit
philanthropies, the proposal for comprehensive frameworks of
interaction with these actors, is indeed timely.
It is critical that such frameworks are firmly underpinned by
principles of transparency, and avoiding of conflicts of interests.
Such frameworks should also not influence or undermine members' role
in decision-making in WHO.

On the matter of transparency, any framework on WHO's interactions
with private for-profit organizations and not-for-profit philanthropies
should ensure that details of all formal and informal interactions
including the inputs provided by such actors are publicly available on
WHO's website. This is an important step to safeguarding
the independence and constitutional mandate of WHO.

  An Expert Review concluded that WHO lacks "a sufficiently robust,
systematic and open set of procedures for disclosing, recognising and
managing conflicts of interests among expert advisors".

A comprehensive conflicts of interests policy must be developed, one which
tackles both individual and institutional conflicts of interest, with
adequate measures and mechanisms for its implementation. A comprehensive
approach to conflicts of interest is absent from the Secretariat's
proposal, which only vaguely touches upon the issue.

The Secretariat's proposals should be amended to establish a process
to map and analyse all formal and informal partnerships WHO is engaged
in, with the aim to conduct a thorough impact assessment of WHO's
involvement in such partnerships including the financial implications
for WHO, the purpose, strategy, and cost effectiveness of
partnerships, as well as their compliance with the WHO Constitution
and work plan. +
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20120119/0a3d9f98/attachment.html>