pg. 14: a set of proposals to strengthen global health governance, [bold in the original] including an annual multi-actor Global Health Summit adjacent to the World Health Organization’s intergovernmental World Health Assembly.
pg 22 : Rather than trying to rally these multiple sectors around an agenda entirely conceived and driven by health professionals, a more integrated planning process is needed to improve the impact of curative and particularly preventive health activities. To this end, they propose an annual multi-actor Global Health Summit adjacent to the WHO’s intergovernmental World Health Assembly as well as a Partnership for Health Risk Accountability and Health Data Charter to enable the creation of a more rigorous analytical foundation for such planning.
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.