European perspectives on global health: a policy glossary

European perspectives on global health: a policy glossary European perspectives on global health: a policy glossary

28.11.2014 Views

3. Europe must assert its role in global health governance health in rich and poor countries. The leading role of some large NGOs like MSF and Oxfam has increased their impact on public opinion ; the MSF has also demonstrated its strength with the creation of the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative as a new form of developing Research and Development. The rise of human right organisations has linked advocacy for public health with fighting for a broader field of human development. In general during the recent two decades the number and diversity of influential actors in global health has increased considerably. This has helped to boost financial and personnel resources available for healthrelated strategies and it has led to a considerably larger public awareness of and involvement in global health affairs. On the other hand, there is now a larger array of actors with different interests involved ( e.g. security, protection of own population against transborder spread of diseases, fighting poverty, enhancing development, making profits, human rights ), who, of course, also use their political and financial resources to support their specific positions. Compromises between actors with different interests, including private actors like pharmaceutical companies and NGOs are an essential feature of Global Health Governance. This frequently creates a lack of transparency, accountabilities to very different publics and a lack of legitimacy for GHG as a whole. The politics of the EU and its Member States fits into this picture, with many different forms of reaction to different issues and different forms of involvement. Action : The development of policy coherence for global health within the EU could be an important factor for making the EU a strong actor for the better integration of global health governance, without forgoing the advantages of the involvement of many different actors. Europe must be in the lead in establishing a global health architecture that respects the diversity but articulates, resolves and ensures transparency, accountability and joint action. References : Global Health Watch 2005-2006 : An alternative world health report. London : Zed Books, 2005, in association with the People’s Health Movement, Bangalore ; Medact, London ; Global Equity Gauge Alliance, Durban. Kickbusch, I., The Leavell Lecture : ”The End of Public Health as We Know It : Constructing Global Public Health in the 21st century”, Public Health, 2004, 463-469 40 ong>Europeanong> Foundation Centre – ong>Europeanong> Partnership for Global Health

3. Europe must assert its role in global health governance Financing for global health The resource streams for global health are difficult to calculate as they come from a wide array of sources. Dominant in the global health discussion is financing through foreign aid but other sources of finance have increased significantly. Of increasing importance is global public goods financing. Europe needs to explore new financing mechanisms to ensure the three strategic priorities of global health : security, equity and good governance. The discussion of financing for global health is usually dominated by a debate on funding for development and a call to donor countries to increase their support of developing countries. Lately, an additional debate on financing global public goods – such as global disease surveillance systems – has emerged, and the UNDP is suggesting a new approach to global public finance. The neglected area of financing for global health is the financing of the regular budget of international organisations – such as WHO. There is a tendency to fund diseases, issues and programmes – as discussed below – but not governance structures. This though has led to a significant weakening of a number of international organisations. Europe should be at the forefront of exploring new financing and governance mechanisms that ensure all three strategic priorities of global health : security, equity and good governance. The most comprehensive study on resource needs for global health is still the report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health ( CMH ), commissioned by WHO and directed by Jeffrey Sachs, while other estimates tend to focus on the resource needs for single issues or diseases. The CMH report starts with the observation that “only a handful of diseases and conditions are responsible for most of the world’s health deficit : HIV / AIDS ; malaria ; TB ; diseases that kill mothers and their infants ; tobacco-related illness ; and childhood diseases”. In order to improve health in the developing world additional financing especially in three areas is required : scaling-up of existing interventions, R&D, and global public goods. The report states that effective interventions exist to prevent Global Health Policy Glossary or cure most of the above-mentioned diseases. Both national and international spending, however, are insufficient to meet the challenges. While total spending on health per person / year amounts to nearly $2000 in the developed world, it is only $11 in the least developed countries ( with $6 being public domestic spending, $2.3 being donor assistance and the rest being out-of-pocket expenditures ). In order to scale up the existing interventions and to prevent 8 of the 16 million deaths per year from the above mentioned diseases, $34 per person / year would be necessary. The CMH report thus recommends that the developing countries should increase their budgetary spending on health by an additional 1 % of GNP by 2007 and 2 % by 2015, while donor countries should help to close the gap by increasing from the current levels of health-related ODA of approximately $6 billion per year to $27 billion by 2007 and $38 billion by 2015. More recent studies do not focus exclusively on health, but deal with the resource needs for the entire process of the Millennium Development Goals ( MDGs ). The study of the “High-Level Panel on Financing for Development” that served as input for the “International Conference on Financing for Development” in Monterrey 2002 was the first to specify the amount of ODA that is required to meet the MDGs and gives the often cited figure of $50 billion / year, supplemented by $3 billion / year for humanitarian aid and $15 billion / year for the provision of global public goods, leading to a total of $68 billion / year or a doubling of the current levels of aid. Other studies basically confirm these quantities, while NGOs like Oxfam ( 2002 ) assume a global need of around $100 billion / year. The report of the Millennium Project ( 2005 ) estimates the resource needs to be even higher and states that in order to achieve the MDGs, ODA of $135 billion / year ( = 0,44 % of GNI ) will be needed in 2006 and that international funding will have to rise to $195 billion / year ( = 0,54 % of GNI ) by 2015. This logically leads to the question of where the additional money should come from. The report of the Millennium Project does not say much in that context ; it only vaguely mentions the option to “frontload” ODA through capital markets via the International Finance Facility ( IFF ), as proposed by Gordon Brown, the UK Chancellor. Other studies go further on these 41

3. Europe must assert its role in <strong>global</strong> <strong>health</strong> governance<br />

<strong>health</strong> in rich and poor countries. The leading role of<br />

some large NGOs like MSF and Oxfam has increased<br />

their impact <strong>on</strong> public opini<strong>on</strong> ; the MSF has also<br />

dem<strong>on</strong>strated its strength with the creati<strong>on</strong> of the<br />

Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative as a new form<br />

of developing Research and Development. The rise<br />

of human right organisati<strong>on</strong>s has linked advocacy<br />

for public <strong>health</strong> with fighting for a broader field of<br />

human development.<br />

In general during the recent two decades the number<br />

and diversity of influential actors in <strong>global</strong> <strong>health</strong><br />

has increased c<strong>on</strong>siderably. This has helped to boost<br />

financial and pers<strong>on</strong>nel resources available for <strong>health</strong>related<br />

strategies and it has led to a c<strong>on</strong>siderably<br />

larger public awareness of and involvement in <strong>global</strong><br />

<strong>health</strong> affairs. On the other hand, there is now a larger<br />

array of actors with different interests involved ( e.g.<br />

security, protecti<strong>on</strong> of own populati<strong>on</strong> against transborder<br />

spread of diseases, fighting poverty, enhancing<br />

development, making profits, human rights ), who, of<br />

course, also use their political and financial resources<br />

to support their specific positi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />

Compromises between actors with different<br />

interests, including private actors like pharmaceutical<br />

companies and NGOs are an essential feature of<br />

Global Health Governance. This frequently creates a<br />

lack of transparency, accountabilities to very different<br />

publics and a lack of legitimacy for GHG as a whole.<br />

The politics of the EU and its Member States fits into<br />

this picture, with many different forms of reacti<strong>on</strong> to<br />

different issues and different forms of involvement.<br />

Acti<strong>on</strong> : The development of <strong>policy</strong> coherence for<br />

<strong>global</strong> <strong>health</strong> within the EU could be an important<br />

factor for making the EU a str<strong>on</strong>g actor for the better<br />

integrati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>global</strong> <strong>health</strong> governance, without<br />

forgoing the advantages of the involvement of<br />

many different actors. Europe must be in the lead in<br />

establishing a <strong>global</strong> <strong>health</strong> architecture that respects<br />

the diversity but articulates, resolves and ensures<br />

transparency, accountability and joint acti<strong>on</strong>.<br />

References :<br />

Global Health Watch 2005-2006 : An alternative world<br />

<strong>health</strong> report. L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> : Zed Books, 2005, in associati<strong>on</strong><br />

with the People’s Health Movement, Bangalore ; Medact,<br />

L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> ; Global Equity Gauge Alliance, Durban.<br />

Kickbusch, I., The Leavell Lecture : ”The End of Public Health<br />

as We Know It : C<strong>on</strong>structing Global Public Health in the<br />

21st century”, Public Health, 2004, 463-469<br />

40 <str<strong>on</strong>g>European</str<strong>on</strong>g> Foundati<strong>on</strong> Centre – <str<strong>on</strong>g>European</str<strong>on</strong>g> Partnership for Global Health

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!