<div class="gmail_quote"> From: <a href="mailto:ssangeeta@myjaring.net">ssangeeta@myjaring.net</a><br> <br>TWN Info Service <br>
Third World Network<br>
<br>Below is a news report on discussions on WHO's reform that took place at the WHO Executive Board that met on 25th May 2011. (excerpts)<br>
<br>
We also have done an article on discussions on the reform that transpired at the World Health Assembly and on the outcome. This article is available at <a href="http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2011/ipr" target="_blank">http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2011/ipr</a>.info.110506.htm<br>
<br><br>
WHO: Members' pressure leads to more inclusive reform process<br>
(SUNS #7163 Monday 6 June 2011)<br>
<br>
Geneva, 1 Jun (K. M. Gopakumar and Sangeeta Shashikant) Dissatisfaction<br>
brewing among many Member States over the Secretariat's reform plan<br>
culminated with Members reasserting their control over the reform process of<br>
the World Health Organisation.<br>
<br>
This took place at the 129th session of the WHO Executive Board on 25 May.<br>
Earlier, the World Health Assembly (WHA) that met in Geneva on 16-24 May had<br>
considered the WHO Director General's report titled "The Future of Financing<br>
for WHO" (A64/4) that contains a broad, far-reaching reform agenda that is<br>
likely to reshape the way in which the organization operates, is governed,<br>
makes decisions and is financed.<br>
<br>
The broad reform plan led to many Member States expressing their concerns<br>
particularly over the lack of detail on the reforms proposed, the stress on<br>
"donor-funding" to resolve the financial difficulties of the WHO, as well as<br>
proposals such as the convening of the World Health Forum, which is aimed at<br>
increasing the influence of the private sector and donors in setting the<br>
health agenda in the WHO. They also emphasized that the WHO's reform process<br>
must be driven by Members States themselves. However, these concerns were<br>
skilfully side-stepped by Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO's Director-General with<br>
promises of inclusiveness leading to the rapid adoption of the Secretariat's<br>
resolution on the reform process which did not measure up to Member States'<br>
expectations .<br>
<br>
Member States' discontent with Dr. Chan's approach to reform continued to<br>
brew, forcing the matter onto the agenda of the Executive Board (EB) that<br>
met on 25 May after the conclusion of the WHA.<br>
<br>
The Executive Board is composed of 34 members technically qualified in the<br>
field of health and meets twice a year. The main functions of the Board are<br>
to give effect to the decisions and policies of the World Health Assembly,<br>
to advise it and generally to facilitate its work.]<br>
<br>
Discussion at the EB saw a push by developed and developing countries for a<br>
more transparent and Member State-driven process, resulting in the adoption<br>
of a new decision EB 129(8) on WHO's reform for a healthy future. This new<br>
decision sets out a more transparent and inclusive consultative process for<br>
the finalisation of a reform plan in the next 6 months for consideration of<br>
a special EB session that will be convened in November 2011.<br>
<br>
The decision taken is as follows:<br>
<br>
"The Executive Board,<br>
<br>
"1. DECIDES to establish a transparent, Member State-driven and inclusive<br>
consultative process, on WHO reforms, based on existing mechanisms,<br>
comprising of the following steps:<br>
<br>
"2. REQUESTS the Director-General to prepare by the end of June 2011, three<br>
concept papers which will be further revised on an ongoing basis through the<br>
consultative process, on the following issues: governance of WHO,<br>
independent evaluation of WHO, and the World Health Forum, as outlined in<br>
resolution WHA64.2;<br>
<br>
"3. REQUESTS the Director-General to hold consultations of Member States at<br>
WHO Headquarters, on these papers, and to create a platform for web-based<br>
consultations by the end of July 2011;<br>
<br>
"4. REQUESTS Regional Committees, based on the updated concept papers, to<br>
engage in strategic discussions regarding the WHO reform process and report<br>
on these discussions to the meeting outlined below;<br>
<br>
"5. DECIDES to hold a special session of the Executive Board open to all<br>
Member States in November 2011, following the Regional Committee meetings,<br>
to discuss outcomes of the consultative process on the three papers, and<br>
draft proposals prepared by the Secretariat or proposed by Member States on<br>
other aspects of the reforms outlined in document A64/4.;<br>
<br>
"6. URGES Member States to support, with possible funding, and actively<br>
engage in the reform process;<br>
<br>
"7. REQUESTS the Director-General to support the aforementioned elements of<br>
the consultative process."<br>
<br>
This decision is significant in that Member States pushed to regain control<br>
of WHO's critical reforms which has hitherto been driven by the Secretariat.<br>
It is also a major improvement over the Secretariat's resolution WHA 64.2<br>
adopted during the WHA. The EB decision sets out a detailed process for<br>
Member States' involvement including at the regional level, in driving all<br>
aspects of WHO's reform. According to the decision, the special session of<br>
the EB (open to all Member States) in November will discuss the entire<br>
reform package.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, the WHA 64.2 envisaged limited participation of Member<br>
States including the EB in the reform process.<br>
<br>
[WHA 64.2 endorses the Director-General's report (A64/4) and requests the EB<br>
to establish an appropriate process to examine specific issues related to<br>
WHO's governance identified in the Report. The resolution also further<br>
requests the Director-General to present a concept paper for the World<br>
Health Forum proposed to be held in November 2012, to the 130th session of<br>
the Executive Board in January 2012; to develop an approach to independent<br>
evaluation in consultation with Member States, and to present a first report<br>
on the evaluation of the work of WHO to the 65th WHA in 2012; and to update<br>
the 65th WHA on the progress through the 130th Executive Board meeting.<br>
<br> Interestingly, the three concept papers to be prepared under the EB decision<br>
do not mention the financing of WHO.<br>
<br><br>Dr. Chan said that there was insufficient time to include the<br>
issue of financing in the concept paper, but agreed to conduct consultations<br>
beginning July and to address the issue in the concept paper. Dr. Chan also<br>
said that the issue of finance and resource mobilisation is part of the<br>
governance mechanism. The extent to which Dr. Chan will seek to address the<br>
financial difficulties of WHO as part of the reform process is unclear. The<br>
EB decision also lacks clarity on the utility of the independent evaluation<br>
to the reform process as the independent evaluation will be undertaken in<br>
parallel with other aspects of WHO's reform.<br>
<br> Several Member States also raised again concerns over the private financing of the reform as WHO<br>
proposed that the development of the reform programme be partially funded by<br>
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (A64/4 Add. 1). The EB decision<br>
attempts to address the issue by urging Member States to support the reform<br>
process including possible funding. <br>
<br> The WHO staff association representative said that while they supported the<br>
reform, they sought clarification on the purpose and direction of reform,<br>
adding that the staff was under severe stress. The staff association also<br>
protested outside the EB meeting room, holding placards with slogans<br>
questioning the accountability of WHO's top management. Some slogans were: "<br>
WHO on Fire 800 staffs gone what is the vision and the implications for WHO<br>
mandate" and "350 staffs to be fired where is the management<br>
accountability".<br>
<br>
Concerns raised at the WHA were also raised by several civil society<br>
organizations in a letter to the EB members, prior to the EB meeting. In<br>
particular, the letter expressed concern with the WHO's reform and the<br>
potential conflict of interest involved in the reform process. The letter<br>
requested "the Executive Board to provide guidance and design a process by<br>
which the WHO secretariat might manage conflicts of interest as part of the<br>
governance review process.<br>
<br>
"This process should include a definition of individual and institutional<br>
conflicts of interests as well as specific guidelines on how to<br>
appropriately manage them; it should also require that WHO's institutional<br>
policies for interaction with the commercial sector are clarified and widely<br>
publicised. "Finally, we believe that in order to have a credible reform,<br>
there is need for a broader discussion with Member States on the reform<br>
process and objectives and the financing of the WHO, where these matters are<br>
duly addressed, as are Member States contributions to, and their engagement<br>
with, the WHO". +<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br></div>