Cancer Aid Society - India Comments on Zero Draft Dated: 29/08/2013

<strong>Cancer</strong> <strong>Aid</strong> <strong>Society</strong> - <strong>India</strong>
<strong>Comments</strong> on Zero Draft
Dated: 29/08/2013
Question 1: Which of the above proposed principles do Member States and international
partners agree with? Are there other principles that should be included?
<strong>Comments</strong>: There has to be a clarity in the mechanism for involving the non state actors
including relevant NGOs who have core experience in this field.
We have 25 years of experience of working at community level for the prevention and control
of the Tobacco and Non Communicable Diseases specifically <strong>Cancer</strong>.
Most of the time policies are framed without consulting the stakeholders who are working at
the grass root level and directly involved in the execution and implementation for getting the
end results and there are no assessments and follow up plans.
Any system to survive has to be dynamic and should be updated periodically depending
upon the open system of feedback from the beneficiaries, community and other stake
holders.
Examples:
1. World <strong>Cancer</strong> Declaration 2006 and 2008 of UICC have not been successful due to lack
of sensitization and propaganda however <strong>Cancer</strong> <strong>Aid</strong> <strong>Society</strong> got it ratified by thousands of
Institutions representing Millions of people however in absence of a mechanism for
submitting our report we could not send it along with our observations.
2. National <strong>Cancer</strong> Control Program prepared in 1984-85 by Government of <strong>India</strong> was a
meticulous document (where it admitted the failure of the earlier NCCP 1975-76 which was
focussed on treatment oriented approach) which if implemented would have changed the
scenario however there was neither will nor action resulting in utter failure and subsequent
NCCPs were having a different direction all together taking it back to the original program of
1975-76.
Question 2: Which of the above proposed functions do Member States and international
partners agree with? Are there other functions that should be included?
<strong>Comments</strong>: When it comes to the Charity laws in various countries most of the above
functions are not considered as Charity and as such the organisations engaged in
above functions cannot take the benefit of Tax Exemption and do not get donations
thereof which will be a major deterrent in prevention control of Non Communicable
Diseases, Health Education and Advocacy for such Non Govt. Organisations.
This should be taken up seriously for end results.
Question 3: Are there a set of initial working groups that Member States and international
partners would like to see established?
<strong>Comments</strong>: Formation of working groups to be transparent and clarity on the involvement of
not state actors actually working at community level rather than those who formulate
guidelines without experience.
Question 4: Are there additional responsibilities that Member States and international
partners would like to see the Secretariat undertaking?

<strong>Comments</strong>: Mechanism of Trainings and exchanges at grass root level.
Question 5: Do Member States and international partners agree with proposed approach
with regards the accountability for a global mechanism? How would participants be
accountable to a global coordination mechanism for reporting on their activities? How could
a global coordination mechanism create synergies with the Secretariat’s reports on progress
achieved in attaining the nine voluntary global targets in 2016, 2021 and 2026?
<strong>Comments</strong>: Periodical reports to be obtained from the participants of the workgroup and
defaulters may replaced by others who have been active. The system has to be dynamic.
<strong>Cancer</strong> <strong>Aid</strong> <strong>Society</strong> is leading in <strong>India</strong> in Prevention and Control of NCDs, <strong>Cancer</strong> and
Tobacco Control along with Palliative Care and Advocacy since last 25 years however when
it comes to meetings on NCDs we have no place in spite of the fact that we are having
Special Consultative Status with the ECOSOC. When it comes to experience in terms of
Quality and Quantity of work at grass root level there is no other parallel organisation even
globally.
We have tried our best to contact the WHO SERO Office as well as Country office in <strong>India</strong>,
we could not get an appointment to meet the concerned officials since last 3 years whereas
we are entitled to participate in the meetings at all the Offices of the UNO after registration.
This needs to be redressed globally for a fruitful result.
Question 6: What are the main approaches that public health interests can be safeguarded
from undue influence by any form of real, perceived or potential conflict of interest in a global
coordination mechanism?
Selecting of non state actors to be more transparent and independent from Govt. sources so
as to eliminate biases towards inactive participants.
Please refer the previous Comment against Qs. No. 5 for elaboration.
Question 7: What do Member States and international partners consider would be a
suitable name for a global coordination mechanism?
1. GLOBAL ACTION PLAN AGAINST NON COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
2. ACTION PLAN FOR ERADICATION OF NCDs
3. TARGET : NCD FREE WORLD
4. GLOBAL NETWORKING AGAINST NCDs
5. GOODBYE NCDs
Prepared by:
Piyush Gupta, PEO
For and on behalf of <strong>Cancer</strong> <strong>Aid</strong> <strong>Society</strong>, <strong>India</strong>