India seeks to strengthen and reform WHO: Here’s why

-

India, in the second global Covid virtual summit held recently, suggested strengthening and reforming the World Health Organisation (WHO) for creation of a stronger and more resilient global health security architecture. The question is why there is need for its reform and which are the key areas to be reformed and strengthened for enhancing resilient global health architecture.

There is no denial of the fact that effective implementation of public policies is strongly dependent on good governance at both global and national levels. Definitions by experts justifies the fact that “global governance is “doing internationally what governments do at home”. Lancet (2009) defines inter alia global health as the area of study, research and practice that places a priority on improving health and achieving equity in health for all people worldwide. It emphasises transnational health issues, determinants and solutions, facilitates inter and multi-disciplinary collaboration within and beyond health sciences and is a synthesis of population-based prevention and individual-level clinical care.

Global health governance could be defined as the formal and informal institutions, norms and processes which govern or directly influence global health policy and outcomes and, in this context, three key areas for study from WHO perspective include: (a) global health challenges and key players; (b) sound and sustainable policies for health (national and global); and, (c) implementation of policies through good governance.

The WHO constitution came into force on 7 April 1948 with its mission focused on the attainment by all people of the highest possible level of health. Currently, there are 194 Member States grouped according to regional distribution constituting The World Health Assembly, with its elected Executive Board consisting of 34 technically qualified persons from Member States, for a three-year term. The WHO currently has 148 offices in countries, territories and areas, six regional offices and headquartered in Geneva to support its 194 Member States and two Associate Member States (Puerto Rico and Tokelau) with a total strength of around 8,000 staff.

The comparative advantages of WHO stems from its normative function (set standards, best practices, guidelines), direct reach into ministries of health to provide technical support to countries, its independence, impartiality, neutral broker, convenor and coordinator, political legitimacy and technical credibility, global reach (regional and country offices) and finally it gives a voice to, and champions the health of poor people. In this context, a participant in the WHO Research Strategy Dialogue 2007 said, “WHO is uniquely placed as the only organisation where the voice of the Maldives (population of 306,000) has the same weight as the voice of the United States (population of 306,000,000).” However, this comparative advantage may need to be converted to well-coordinated action to arrive at best results for resilient global health architecture.

The WHO funding source may be relevant for understanding its organisational structure and functions much better. The total budget of WHO was $4.3-4.4 billion during the period 2016-17 to 2018-19. Out of its total resources, 28 per cent are assessed contributions from Member States and the rest 72 percent are voluntary contributions. The assessed contributions are a percentage of a country’s GDP which is agreed by the United Nations General Assembly. Thus, if we analyse WHO budget for the years 2016-17 to 2018-19, we could understand that the US contribute 22 per cent of its budget followed by Japan (10 per cent), China (7.9 per cent), Germany (6.4 per cent), France (4.9 per cent), UK (4.5 per cent), Brazil (3.8 per cent) and so on. India contributed 0.8 per cent of its budget and South Africa, 0.4 per cent during this period (WHO).

For more clarity, if we analyse the main contributors to WHO in the year 2012, $271.2 million is contributed by Gates Foundation, $237.5 million by the US, $131.7 million by the UK, $99.6 million by Canada, $92.6 million by Gavi, the vaccine alliance and $289.2 million by others (Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation). Further, if we analyse the programme budget of WHO for the year 2018-19, out of its $4.4 billion, $3.4 billion goes for its base programmes with highest allocation for communicable diseases followed by corporate services/enabling functions. The remaining $1 billion goes for polio and special programmes. Also, more than one-fourth of its spending is done by its headquarters. This expenditure trend is continued with negligible growth in budget over the years which may require reconsideration.

The challenges of WHO are derived/broadly classified into internal and external factors. The internal factors include biomedical versus social medicine health approaches and the debate between vertical and horizontal approaches of WHO, inadequate resources (zero real/nominal growth in its budget), unclear priorities among a multitude of programmes by a plethora of health funding agencies and weak leadership and accusations of waste and corruption within the organisation. The biomedical or the vertical approach by WHO, being a specialised one, is executed by health workers and may not be successful unless there are permanent health services in specific regions for its monitoring. The horizontal approach of WHO, like mass campaigns, involves a significant proportion of population and the same is essential for its success, which is indeed in both approaches, lacking.

The external factors contributing to WHO are varied. The prime concern is the declining commitment to multilateral action/United Nations after the end of the Cold War and in the current geopolitical climate of rising nationalism and deglobalisation. The primacy of international financial institutions like the World Bank addressing multidisciplinary requirements is another major factor. The political pressure exerted by powerful member states and corporate interests, due to their major contribution in the budget may not result in a level-playing field for other member countries. Also, there is a growing call for social justice amid accelerating economic globalisation.

Thus, the four biggest challenges of WHO are resources, organisational structure, governance and finally ‘not the only kid in the block’.

Surjith Karthikeyan serves as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Jijimol Suvarna is an Officer from an Indian PSU. Views expressed are personal.



from Firstpost India Latest News https://ift.tt/DLFKc0C
Surjith Karthikeyan and Jijimol Suvarna

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Both COVID-19 vaccine doses needed for good protection against B16172 variant

-
It’s been a concerning few weeks in the UK, with the B16172 variant first taking hold and then spreading to become dominant. This more infectious form of the virus, initially identified in India, is what we’re now going to have to live with – unless it is out-competed by another variant in the future. Worryingly, experts had predicted that B16172 might be able to escape some of the effects of vaccines, which if true would threaten to derail the UK’s plans to finish lifting restrictions from the end of June. However, Public Health England (PHE) has looked at the ability of various variants to evade immunity and says that the UK’s vaccines remain effective against the variants circulating, including B16172. On the surface, this looks like good news. But delve a bit deeper, and things get more complicated, says Paul Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia. PHE’s research found a little drop-off in protection against B16172 among people who were fully vaccinated.
Read more

New coronavirus variant emerge in India: How should our COVID response change?

-
Image
After genome sequencing of over 10,000 COVID-19 cases in India, researchers have discovered a new variant with two new mutations which may be better at evading the immune system. In 15-20 percent of samples from the Indian state of Maharashtra (the state accounting for 62 percent of cases in the country) a new, double mutation in key areas of the virus has been detected. These are now known as the E484Q and L452R mutations. What makes the variant different? Both these mutations are concerning because they are located in a key portion of the virus – the spike protein – that it uses to penetrate human cells. Spike proteins attach via a “receptor binding domain”, meaning the virus can attach to receptors in our cells. These new mutations include changes to the spike protein that make it a “better fit” for human cells. This means the virus can gain entry more easily and multiply faster. Given what we have seen with other similar mutations , it might also make it harder for our immu
Read more

Aditya L1 Mission: Spacecraft is nearing its final phase, says ISRO chief

-
Aditya L1 spacecraft is nearing its final phase, and manoeuvres to enter the L1 point are expected to be completed by January 7, 2024, according to ISRO Chairman S Somanath. “Aditya is on the way. I think it has reached almost its final phase,” the ISRO chief told PTI on the sidelines of an event organised at VSSC to commemorate the 60th year of the First Sounding Rocket Launch. Aditya L1, India’s first space-based mission to study the Sun, was successfully launched on September 2 from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC) in Sriharikota. The spacecraft, after travelling about 1.5 million km from Earth over 125 days, is expected to be placed in a Halo orbit around the Lagrangian point L1, considered closest to the Sun. He said that the last preparations for the spacecraft’s entry into the L1 point are currently underway incrementally.”Possibly by January 7th, the final manoeuvres will be done for entering into the L1 point,” Somanath added. Among other tasks, it will capture and tr
Read more