WHO information session on NSA consultation and secretariat proposals:  IBFAN Questions/Comments

16th December 2019 –  Some very worrying changes are bing proposed at this meeting and I am joining this meeting by WEBEX.  Thanks to colleagues from the Geneva NGO Hub (G2H2) who  are present in person and summing up some of our concerns

you can register and listen in

Host: VCWebEx Operator01 (vcwbxop01@who.int)
Event number (access code): 849 790 835

 

Documentation for the upcoming Executive Board Meeting EB146 Feb 2020.  Main document for this meeting: EB146/33 (WHO Reform: involvement of non-State Actors in WHO’s governing bodies)
General comment:
  • The Secretariat’s proposals are very problematic and IBFAN is especially alarmed that the idea of the multi stakeholder global forum has risen again.  We attended the WHO Health Forum in Moscow in 2011 and issued a Press Release afterwards outlining our concerns.  We see no evidence of any strong Civil Society support for this idea which is full of risks for WHO, Civil Society and Public health. What extra resources does WHO have to improve its safeguards against undue commercial influence since 2011 and evaluate the impact of the new ideas?
  • As we stated  in  Annex 3 Proposals from non-State actors in official relations  many of the proposals  rely on the inadequate and incorrect COI safeguards embedded in the Framework for Engagement with Non State Actors (FENSA)   Will WHO correct this before Piloting any of these ideas? See previous IBFAN comments on FENSA –  including to the ‘confidential’ implementation evaluation. IBFAN Initial evaluation of the Implementation of FENSA (Extranet)
  • The proposals will greatly benefit the Private Sector who attend WHO meetings wearing the same badges as Civil Society.  Why is this essential transparency step not listed as a proposal?
  • Will WHO ensure that those entering on a  public badge are publicly listed?  Up till now they are not – and ISDI and others who have lost their official relations status can be present this way – with privileged access to Member States and with no public record of their presence.
Other specific comments
Para 17 – Pilot studies of the proposals – IBFAN rejects this idea
Para 18:  Revival of the old Multi-stakeholder Global Health Forum  IBFAN totally opposes this idea and can see no Civil Society support for it.  See attached Moscow Press release 2011
Para 19 Limitation of Statements:  IBFAN opposes this idea because it applies equally to all NSAs.
Para 20 Limitation of 3 statements per NGO   IBFAN considers that 5 might be OK
Para 21. Limit number on delegations to 25  It is important that Civil Society Coalitions that contribute so much to the quality of communications and information  at WHO meeting, should not suffer undue limitations.  50 might be OK.
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *