Readers' Guide Comment on “Global Health Summit adjacent to the … World Health Assembly”
The GRI’s recommendation for an experimental governance effort at the WHO is similar to its recommendation for UNESCO governance. The most significant difference is that the UNESCO recommendation is associated with just one program, while the GRI proposal on WHO covers all of WHO activities. Here, too, WEF neglects to address potential conflicts of interest in the formulation of public policy by non-state firms. If there are any representatives of health-related industries in the multi-Actor summit, then the outcome of the summit’s effort to develop global health policies may well be tainted by corporate self-interest. Even if the health care related industries were excluded from a non-state WHO health summit, it is not clear how the urgent health priorities of the poor would be better represented in the outcomes of the governance system.
Related Ideas: Key third and fourth tools; Public-private governance; Dual oversight; Public-private UN system; Functional aspects of governance; Multi-stakeholder governance at FAO; Multi-stakeholder governance at UNESCO
The Readers' Guide welcomes comments with alternative examples or counter examples, supplemental assessments of the extracted GRI text or commentary – critical or otherwise – of the above interpretation of GRI’s perspective.