PARTNERSHIPS FOR HEALTH IN THE 21st CENTURY: 2 + 2 = 5 - conference working paper -
Item
- Title
-
PARTNERSHIPS FOR HEALTH IN THE
21st CENTURY:
2 + 2 = 5
- conference working paper - - extracted text
-
HPR/HEP/4ICHP/PT/97.1
Distribution: limited
English only
New Players for a New Era: Leading Health Promotion into the 21st Century
Fourth International Conference on Health Promotion
Jakarta, Indonesia, 21-25 July 1997
PARTNERSHIPS FOR HEALTH PROMOTION
PARTNERSHIPS FOR HEALTH IN THE
21st CENTURY:
2+2=5
- conference working paper -
DRAFT
provided by:
Working group on partnerships at WHO Headquarters
in the context of the Health for All Renewal
This paper is being made available at the 4th International Conference on
Health Promotion, Jakarta, 21-25 July 1997, for discussions in order to benefit
from additional input and suggestions by the conference participants.
The views expressed in this document by named authors are solely the responsibility of these authors.
This document is not issued to the general public and all rights are reserved jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The document may not be reviewed, abstracted, quoted, reproduced, translated, in part or in whole, without the prior written
permission of WHO. No part of this document may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical or other- without the prior written permission of WHO.
Pnilnuishlpfl lor I loallh In tho 21«l Conlury
HPR/97.6
PARTNERSHIPS FOR HEALTH IN THE 21 ST CENTURY
1. Introduction
“Today more than ever public health
institutions world wide.... need to redefine
their mission in the light ofthe increasingly
complex environment in which they
operate.
Julio Frenk
Partnerships for health have become an increasingly important mechanism in implementing
the WHO Health for All Strategy. This paper argues that the importance of partnerships
will continue to grow and that partnerships for health must constitute a core component of
the new WHO Health for All policy for the 21st century (HFA). Acting as a catalyst and
honest broker for health partnerships must become a dominant function of WHOs work.
In the course of WHOs work partnerships for health have provided new opportunities for
health creation and for putting across health messages. They have allowed for a wider
ownership of health throughout society and have added a new dimension to intersectoral
action for health. They can be practical expressions of solidarity, provide opportunities to
help the most disadvantaged through new approaches and can open new channels of
communication and implementation.
The opportunities for partnerships have increased. Over the last decade the role of non
governmental organizations in health has increased significantly and has gained more
recognition through the strong NGO involvement in the UN summits. Corporate interest
and involvement in health issues has also increased. New players have entered the health
arena: UN agencies in general are more active in health matters and frequently measure
their progress in health terms, development banks are increasing their health investments;
new regional groupings (such as the European Union or ASEAN) are developing health
agendas, we are witnessing the expansion of the private health industry as well as of other
industries that impact health such as the lifestyles and leisure industries (Softdrinks, sports,
leisure, tourism, food, fitness, etc.) and the infonnation and communications industry.
Finally we see new types of advocacy NGOs and associations representing consumer
interests at local, national and global level.
Partnerships for health are evolving at all levels of society. While this paper makes
reference to these, its main focus remains the potential of partnerships within the work of
WHO in order to provide input to the HFA renewal process. WHO has a long tradition of
working with others: with UN-organizations through working agreements and joint
commitments, with the academic community through the Collaborating Centres and with
NGOs through the mechanism of formal relationships. A range of partnerships have also
existed with the private sector, in particular the pharmaceutical industry. Over time new
partnerships have been created, for example with local authorities through the WHO
Healthy Cities Project. There are now many indications and examples which show that new
types of partnerships for health are both necessary and possible and this paper argues that
WHO must strengthen its mechanisms for partnership building.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
1
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
2. Partnerships for Health
Partnerships for health bring together a set of actors for the
common goal of improving the health of populations based on
mutually agreed roles and principles.
Partnerships imply that a balance of power and influence is maintained between the
partners and that each partner can maintain its core values and identity. They are built on:
□ common interest
□ mutual respect
□ clear manageable objectives
□ commitment to contribute time, resources and energy
□ trust
A variety of types of partnerships are possible - ranging from alliances, coalitions,
networks, consortiums, collaboration, cooperation and sponsorships.
Partnership building is a process, where already the negotiations towards the establishment
of a ‘formar’ partnership for health can lead to new opportunities for health creation as
the partners involved evolve and learn. Frequently one partner takes the initiative because
it perceives a partnership approach the more effective way of achieving its goals. This has
certainly been the case with many of the partnerships that WHO has entered - where it has
actively sought out others.
Through the synergy created by the partnership each respective partner gains strength to
fulfill its existing mandate. Each partner contributes “what it does best ’’ to the partnership:
for example WHO can bring its technical expertise and credibility, business its managerial
expertise, marketing competence and logistics, NGOs their knowledge of local culture. In
terms of delivery and outcomes, partnerships aim for the most productive delivery for
maximum benefit. While partners share a common interest they will each have a different
agenda. Well managed partnerships lead to shared benefit and added value for all partners
involved. As one advisor expressed succinctly: they make 2 plus 2 add up to 5.
2+2=5
Thinking in terms of partnerships for health requires a different mind set compared to more
traditional approaches whereby the health department made all decisions on management
of health programmes. WHO will need to move beyond the existing mechanisms and
approaches towards a wider range of partners and new ways of working together.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
2
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
“Partnerships for health” have two important dimensions:
(1) through putting health on the agenda of other actors/sectors the health sector can
significantly increase social momentum for health improvement.
(2) in doing so it can also increasingly help other sectors/actors understand, how health can
support them in reaching their own expressed goals and combine health with other benefits.
0
A
1. Input
systems
WHO
H
"0
H
H [who
2. How do
we get
health on
the agenda
of other
partners ?
Looking at partnerships in a new way moves WHO beyond an input model without
reciprocity (usually a financial or donor mode of operation) to increasing the attempts to
make health an attractive partnership option. The increased interest in health within the UN
system, with business and with NGOs opens tremendous opportunities to broker resources
and commitments. This leads to a much more diversified approach. For example the
mechanism “NGO in official relations with WHO” requires that the NGO concerned have
as its major purpose health. It is becoming increasingly necessary and possible to partner
with NGOs whose primary purpose is not health, but who are keen to contribute to the
health agenda, for example sports organisations or media groups. The recent approach to
work with major football associations to “Kick polio out of Africa” is one such example.
A changing context implies changed and new partnerships.
2.1 The new environment
Strengthening partnerships for health is a practical response to the changed environment
at the end of the 20th century. Traditional development resources are declining,
privatization of government functions .is increasing and private resource transfers to
developing countries are expanding. The understanding that health is a critical factor in
development - indeed a benchmark for development - is gaining ground and opening up
opportunities for partnerships that address the broad range of health determinants and health
needs. New information technology offers access to communication, information sharing
and networking not possible before. The health industry itself has become a major
development factor. Civil society organizations are increasingly actors (and watch dogs)
in the development process.
WHO must increasingly see its role as one of mustering support for health from these
many players for its health development agenda -both the unfinished business such
as child survival and the new challenges such as ageing of societies. It cannot tackle the
immense threats to health - such as poverty - alone and through the health system. It needs
strong partnerships between public bodies, civil society and the private sector to make
health everybody's business. It would be a serious misunderstanding of the importance of
partnerships for health if they were simply seen as a way out of the financial stringency
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
3
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
faced by the public sector or by NGOs, they are not synonymous with financing or
sponsorship.
Within a large organization new ideas and visions may be difficult to implement, or may
be subverted and incorporated into routine approaches. Having an external partner may
assist an organization such as WHO in the task of altering its mode of operation, which is
a very difficult thing for a UN agency. In a complex, rapidly changing environment old
mechamsms do not always provide solutions, indeed they can become counterproductive.
It is essential therefore that WHO establish a set of clear principles, criteria and guidelines
for partnerships and motivate staff to seek partnerships. This paper makes some suggestions
of direction, but recommends that the proposals put forward be further explored. An
approach-similar to that used by FAO to establish its new guidelines could be
recommended.
2.2 New players
The relations between WHO and its partners will not be as predefined and straight forward
as in the past. The two approaches described above will increasingly be replaced by an open
systems model that requires a very different mind set and management approach. In a
rapidly changing environment a certain amount of opportunistic and highly flexible
responses will be necessary, speed will be of the essence, information and knowledge
management will be at the core. WHO would expand and strengthen its role as a broker for
health - mediating, advocating and enabling partnerships for health development.
Partnerships are becoming increasingly common in the health arena. The
pharmaceutical industry is showing a growing interest in matters of health promotion and
working with patient groups on issues of disease management and patient education (Press
Release WHO/80 and 86 1996); FAO has recently restructured its external relations unit
and now pursues an openness towards other partners through its new Unit for Cooperation
with the Private Sector and NGOs (Annex N°6). The World Bank fosters private and public
partnerships for health development and has hosted a series of conferences to strengthen
this approach. UNAIDS is now working with the World Economic Forum, the Prince of
Wales Business Leaders Forum and Rotary International to encourage business leaders to
take an active role in the global response to HIV/AIDS.
The boundaries between sectors and between public and private, for profit and non
profit are also becoming less clearly drawn. Of course WHOs first allegiance is to its
governmental members the Member States - but increasingly there is a strong need to move
beyond Ministries of Health, a move that is not always understood or supported at the
national level. For tobacco control Ministries of Finance and Trade are as important, for
rehabilitation issues Ministries of Social Affairs and welfare are crucial, for schools health
the Ministries of education are key. These issues needs to be addressed head on in the
governing bodies of WHO and mechanisms for regular and systematic dialogue with these
other parts of the public sector need to be established.
Increasingly national health agendas are influenced by regional groupings and
arrangements. No systematic approach to dealing with these entities has yet been
established -particularly since it involves different levels of the organization - the regional
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
4
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
offices and headquarters. Also the impact on health of the work of new organizations such
as the WTO (World Trade Organization) calls for new types of agreements.
On the other end of the spectrum increased decentralization brings new
responsibilities for health to the regional and local level - and these bodies frequently
do not have access to the international health debate and decision making. The mechanisms
for WHO to work with a state/regional government in a federal state system needs
clarification and the information system to reach these levels must be improved
significantly. WHO has shown creative approaches to this challenge such as the Regions
for Health Network in Europe, special agreements as with the State of Maryland and of
course the WHO Healthy Cities network.
Finally both the private sector and the NGO world are becoming more diversified. We
find both for profit and not-for-profit organizations, and we find a range of mixed
arrangements and networks that bring together business partners under an NGO umbrella
or new types of forums, such as the DAVOS summit. Social insurances and health funds
are frequently notfor profit but also do not fall under the NGO category. On the other hand
some NGOs are umbrella organizations for a business-orientation. Other types of “new”
partners that need consideration but do not easily fall under established categories are
parliamentarians, trade unions, political parties, issue based global NGO such as
GREENPEACE , strong national groups such as the AARP (the American Association of
retired persons), foundations, religious groups and organizations.
Partners appear in great diversity and in varied contexts, they cannot all be treated
in the same fashion. A wide range of partners have not been tapped and present WHO
procedures do not allow for a deeper involvement and recognition of their contribution.
This must change in order to allow for the implementation of the new Health Policy for the
21 st century.
2.3 Characteristics of partnerships
One possible method to introduce a more systematic approach is to group health
partnerships according to different characteristics such as,
□ product based partnerships
□ product development partnerships
□ services based partnerships
□ systems and settings based partnerships
□ issue based partnerships
□ health message based partnerships
□ knowledge based partnerships
□
product based
partnerships: for
example deworming
drugs in children,
nicotine replacement
therapy, aspirin postMI, cell phones for
remote clinics.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
Insecticide-treated Mosquito Nets
A potential partnership could exist between WHO, a national
government and the corporate sector producing mosquito nets
and insecticide to ensure an efficient procurement system which
will enable speedy procurement of quality assured materials at
lesser costs. Furthermore all partners could promote the
appropriate use and treatment of the materials by organizing
training sessions or distribution of illustrated instructions.
5
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
□
□
product development
partnerships: for
example designing a
refrigerator for vaccine
for use in developing
countries.
systems and settings
based partnership: for
example the complex
and multiple
partnerships sought in
creating supportive
environments for
health, i.e. Healthy
Cities, safe workplaces,
health promoting
schools
HPR/97.6
(2) Refrigerator for vaccine in developing countries: WHO and
Electrolux
WHO sent letters to 13 companies asking them to develop a
refrigerator for vaccine adapted for use in tropical climates. Three
companies answered and finally two companies continued to
discuss possible designs. WHO provided the knowledge about
circumstances, and the companies designed the product at their
own cost and risk. Elektrolux was the only company to continue
this process to production and they sold many thousands for use
as vaccine refrigerators and other uses. WHO controlled regularly
if the product.fulfilled its function. Today, well adapted
refrigerators for use I tropical climate are available to conserve
the vaccine and for other purposes.
Healthy Cities Project is a intersectoral collaboration and a
supportive environment for health.
The goal is to improve urban health and urban environment in
cities, through a new coalition of local governments, community
organizations, universities, NGOs and the private sector. The
programme focuses on the development of urban policies and
management practices that attach importance to health as a goal
of sustainable development at a local level, and not only at the
national level.
This programme facilitates greater effectiveness of WHO
objectives through decentralization. Today the Healthy City
Project is a network all around the world, which includes not only
WHO-Healthy Cities. The communities exchange plans, ideas,
mutual support and experiences characteristic for the region or
size of town,. But they are also linked to Collaborating Centres,
Ministries of Health and WHO/RO. It also must be emphasized
that in Europe not every WHO Healthy City was able to keep its
title after the first period, as same had not fulfilled certain criteria.
This is an important mechanism to guarantee the standard of the
title and to have some model cities motivating further
improvement of health.
Through these networks WHO has set up a widespread
awareness in health policy, information and knowledge. WHO
and the Ministries of Health are relieved and can concentrate on
monitoring and the input of new issues. Health improves by a
new combination of global and local actions.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
6
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
□ issue based
partnerships: for
example polio
eradication, tobacco
control, food
fortification
HPR/97.6
Polio-eradication: WHO and Rotary International
In the late seventies Rotary International was looking for a bigger
international project to be involved with. A Member of the Club
met a staff member from WHO, who suggested that Rotary could
focus on polio, being a disease that was well known in the
industrialized countries and could be eradicated from the world.
Rotary International decided that they focus initially on fundraising
and they raised over US $ 200 million.
WHO. participated with technical advice and knowledge on
vaccines and immunization. Rotary International brought ideas to
action with money, manpower, initiatives and lobbying. The
relationship developed into a partnership, which grew even
stronger in 1989 when the World Health Assembly adopted a;
resolution to eradicate polio by the year 2000. Rotary
International had themselves by this time set their own goal,
namely eradication of polio by the year 2005, their 100th
anniversary. Some time was needed for the two large
organizations to find a common way to.work together. But with
work, frequent communication and understanding on both sides a
way of working was established. Close contact, continuing
development process, trust and confidence became key elements
in the partnership and it was nourished when results began to
show and one success followed another.
□
health message based
partnerships: for
example joint
campaigns for healthy,
lifestyles, against drunk
driving, for road safety
etc. There would seem
to be enormous scope
for such partnerships
with the
communications
industry.
WHO / UNESCO join together to fight malaria
In recognition of the role that education can play in malaria
prevention, WHO and UNESCO signed a Memorandum of
Understanding on 2 May 1997 by which the two organizations will
collaborate in assisting countries to implement the Global Malaria
Control Strategy.
Malaria is preventable and curable. Through health education,
WHO and UNESCO aim to mobilize schools, children, parents
and the community to play their part in promoting malaria-safe
behavior. UNESCO will develop educational materials, train
teachers and other educational personnel and elaborate
communication materials for the media.
Through personal protection measures, early diagnosis and
treatment and community-based preventive measures the
mortality rates among young children and morbidity rates among
schoolchildren can substantially be reduced. Studies by UNESCO
in rural Africa have shown that over one-sixth of primary school
children have had two or more attacks of malaria in the current
school term, typically missing a week or more of school with each
attack.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
7
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
□
knowledge based
partnerships:
knowledge exchange is
the major part of
partnerships, especially
in a partnership with an
intersectoral approach.
HPR/97.6
The WHO Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health and
Health Promotion in Shanghai carried out a joint three year
project (1992-1995) called the Workplace Health Promotion
Project. In four enterprises affiliated to the metallurgical,
shipbuilding, textile and chemical industries in Shanghai they
increased awareness of occupational health and the necessity of
health promotion at the working place for employees and
employers.
Another way of framing partnerships could include:
□
□
A WHO “seal of approval/endorsement ” of a product, service or
system. For example, airlines could be rewarded for going smoke free and
serving health food by having a special health logo (such as the Blue
Angel) awarded which they could use in their advertising campaign,
A range of “signing up” approaches: for example WHO sets criteria / an
. index for a “healthy company”, a “healthy city”, etc. - and partners would
join a WHO initiative/nctwork that helps them move towards these criteria.
League tables could be considered especially in relation to health and
related service provision.
□
Regular “Benchmark Health Surveys” could be undertaken together with
key partners, similar to the “Benchmark Corporate Environmental Survey”
conducted, by the UNCTAD Programme on Transnational Cooperations.
The goal of such a project would be to develop awareness for health in
different sectors and parts of society.
The growing number of such partnerships for health would help to isolate products or
services clearly damaging to health. Consumer groups and the media could play a key role
in advocating the best practice. It would allow WHO to systematically expand its role as
a broker for significant health development challenges.
2.4 Networks
Increasingly partnerships are organized through networks. WHO has created and is actively
involved in many such networks. They thrive on partnerships at all levels of their
implementation - between the members of the networks, between the networks and WHO,
between one network with other WHO networks. The potential of this “asset” has not been
fully exploited by WHO, networks are frequently still seen as a chance effect rather than
as a management tool for partnerships. Networks reflect the non hierarchical style of
partnership building and perhaps best represent the power shift we are witnessing at the end
of this century.
A network is described as a “grouping of individuals, organizations and agencies,
organized generally on a non-hierarchical basis, around some common theme or
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
8
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
concerns”. Networking for health implies interlinking individuals, groups, institutions and
organizations which have an interest in health. Their purpose is usually to exchange
information and experience; to work together for a common aim; or to advocate a specific position or action. At their best they jointly develop and provide solutions so that the
knowledge developed in one part to the network becomes a joint resource and a public
good. In recent years WHO has build a number of new setting-based networks.
Settings for Health Projects
are being implemented all over the world and some linked officially to WHO networks, such as
.
a
Healthy Cities
Healthy Villages
Healthy Islands
Health Promoting Hospitals
Baby-friendly Hospitals
Healthy Schools Project
Healthy Prisons
Healthy Market Places
Healthy Workplaces
Sports Venues
Countrywide Integrated Noncommunicable Disease Intervention Programme
(CINDI)
Networking may be as informal as the exchange of electronic messages between experts
and the exchange of information and know-how in face-to-face meetings. It may also be
promoted through formally established networks, with agreed rules and regulations for their
operation. An interesting example for network building and growth is the WHO Healthy
Cities Programme.
Islands
AFRO
O°O
G
DONORS
r-x. WPRC
OUO
o
K
IULA
I Council of
o o A
y Europe OWHO EURO
HEALTHYO
OECD
WORLD
BANK
A OCI™SA° European
O o
Union
I__ i EMRO
o
A
o o
° ° G V
G
Villages
4
SEARO
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
4
F NATIONAL
^—NETWORKS
o
O
Markets
o o
Oo
PAHO
9
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
2.5 Consequences for WHO
Role of the health sector: It is essential for WHO to accept that within a changed
environment, one of the key roles of the health sector is to initiate partnerships that
leverage health. WHO will need to enter into partnerships at different levels within
each “partner-category” in addition to the existing relations, such as Collaborating
Centres, NGOs in official relations etc.
'
WHOs organisational culture needs to be more responsive to lateral relationships
and networking among many actors. The present vertical organization is not conductive
to information sharing and network building. Successful partnership building does not
enjoy the same status as successful fundraising of a classical nature. Staff need to
understand the power of partnerships and be trained in partnership building.
An information base listing all WHO partners, their nature, characteristics of the
special partnerships, action plans and related subjects is essential, model contracts and
agreements should be easily accessible. A partnership unit should help monitor
partnerships, help analyse and evaluate them and provide assistance in partnership
building. For a successful protection of WHO’s reputation a internal database of
unaccepted partners and failed partnerships must be established, listing the reasons for
failure. Such an information base could assure unified approaches and procedures.
Mission and assets. To achieve the maximum use of knowledge and facilities by the
partner for common health goals, WHO has to adapt its own mission and assets. This
is already underway as part of the WHO reform process.
A strategic entity (ie a partnerships unit) needs to help develop new partnerships based
on HFA and help maintain and strengthen existing partnerships as well as providing
new impulse. This unit would actively help programmes to build, cultivate and
coordinate networks. This will be the coordinating centre of the new broader spectrum
of external relations. It would help prevent duplication of effort, confusion and waste
and assist with networking the networks. Some internal working groups to this effect
already exist such as the WHO HQ working group on healthy cities.
Guidelines for partnerships must be developed together with potential partners and
presented to the governing bodies.
. Annual “HFA partnership meetings” that assess progress in partnerships for health
in the 21st century should be established beyond individual programmes, donors should
be advised of the experiences gained with a network and partnership approach.
Publications can summarize process and successes of a partnership and motivate other
institutes to contribute resources to partnerships.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
10
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
3. Principles and Criteria for Partnerships with WHO
Principles and criteria are needed within WHO in order to build partnerships and to set a
firm basis for cooperation that will lead.to the attainment of health development goals.
These principles and criteria must provide the basis for all partnerships that WHO enters,
be they with international organisations, governments, NGOs, the corporate or academic
sector.
3.1 Principles
Partnerships with WHO must respect the value system of HFA and be based on
transparency, equal access, protection of WHO’s reputation and recognition that
partnerships can be terminated when necessary. All partnerships imply a risk and the
rewards and costs of the partnership (rather than going it alone) must be clear to all
partners.
(1) The value system of WHO implies a commitment to:
□
□
□
□
□
Human rights
Health; security
Equity
Ethics:
Gender perspective
Partnerships with WHO will respect this value system and where possible advocate for
its acceptance.
(2) operational guidelines: For each partnership commonly agreed guidelines would
include clear reference to HFA principles and how they are made operational within
a specific partnership. The development of a plan of action is a critical element in
every partnership.
(3) Transparency: The partnership should always be made public at the outset and its
progress should be reported regularly in order to ensure maximum transparency.
Where financial transfers are involved, a separate audited account should be maintained
to ensure that public scrutiny of how funds are used is possible.
(4) Protection of WHO’s reputation: Partners must agree not to use the WHO name
or reputation for private gain. The WHO logo, name, or reputation should not be used
to promote goods and services. The exception to this might be the seal of approval or
corporate benchmark approaches listed above (see point 2.3.), in which the objective
is specifically to use the force of WHO to promote healthy goods, services, or
practices. Otherwise the Partners could create a specific action based logo, like such
as those already done by the healthy cities or vaccination programmes. Possibly a
special “in partnership with WHO logo” could be developed.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
11
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
(5) Termination of partnerships: while sustainability should be a key goal for
partnerships mles must be established for the termination of partnerships. WHO must
retain the right to terminate partnerships which are not achieving the anticipated health
gains, which no longer meet the above criteria, or which threatens WHO’s reputation
as an impartial upholder of health values. The possibilities of termination by the partner
have to be included in the negotiation and guidelines. Clear time frames and
benchmarks must identify key stages of implementation and set objectives. The
termination must include an evaluation of the partnerships from both parties.
(6) The issue of equal access possibilities for all potential partners to work with
WHO must be addressed. WHO cannot be seen to exclude a certain partner or
privileging another. The replicability of partnerships must also be explored.
3.2 Basic Criteria for Partnerships
Partnerships should meet three basic criteria:
□ The partnership should lead to significant health gains.
□ The health gains should be worth the effort involved in establishing and
maintaining the partnership.
□ The partnership should strengthen WHOs role as a catalyst for health
development
Because developing partnerships requires human and usually financial resources, a
judgement, must be made early in the process as to whether the added value of the
partnerships (potential health gains) will be worth the effort involved in establishing and
maintaining the partnership.
3.2.1
Criteria for Partnerships with NGO
In addition to the present mechanisms of working relationships between WHO and NGOs
there is a need of a wider spectrum of NGO-relations, including an evaluated and
institutionalized dialogue. The types of NGOs differ considerably and provide alternative
views to those of governments. This diversity is important for an effective improvement
of health. New types of NGOs need to be included as for example urban leagues and
associations of Mayors in order to promote the urban health agenda.
Different types and levels of relationship between NGOs and WHO are needed in order to
reflect the different types of NGOs. While there can be significant differences between
action oriented NGOs and industry umbrella groups there is often excellent scope for
cooperation on specific population health issues. The cooperation of WHO with the food
industry in promoting global food safety shows this.
NGOs that are business umbrella groups should be approached with the criteria for
partnerships with the corporate sector (point 3.2.3).
Otherwise the following criteria may be helpful:
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
12
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
□ NGOs work at all levels, but presently an international scope is regarded as necessary
in order to be in official relations with WHO. This has been a source of deep
frustration to some major national NGOs. It seems to us an unnecessary criteria. It
presently excludes many NGOs that provide rich experience. Not always are national
or community based NGOs affiliated to an international NGO, but many would like
to have easier access to dialogue, advice and information exchange with WHO. It
seems that the development of a network approach could provide solutions for
affiliation.
□ A difference could be made between affiliation to WHO and to a certain WHO
programme. Such a partnership in relation to a certain project or subject, in which the
NGO has helpful experience could be established for a determinate period, but this
would, not exclude a long-lasting partnership. Such recognition and legitimacy seems
only appropriate.
□ The NGO must be of a certain status of organization, reflective of the accountability/
legal status, services provided, recipient/ users, funds.
A range of proposals has been documented in the recent meeting of WHO with NGOs in
the context of the HFA policy for the 21st century. The recommendations in that report
(existing in a draft version) should be carefully studied and linked to the proposals in this
paper.
3.2.2
Criteria for Partnerships with the academic sector
The academic sector represents a source of expertise, technology transfer, and training of
the human resources of tomorrow.
There is a need to make maximum use of the existing collaborative arrangements with the
Collaborating Centres, which primarily provide access to the academic sector and research
community. Much can be done to maximize this very important resource network, through
out-sourcing, competitive bids etc. But the approach to designating Collaborating Centres
should be revised and made more effective, and the achievement of the criteria should be
controlled carefully every four years to protect a good collaboration and the well-deserved
title. Furthermore the academic sector could also be included beyond the health area, in
education, management, economics, law; policy sciences, communication and promotion.
Moreover the fact that many academic institutions are rather private than public raises the
question about independent and authoritative advice, and about general access to health
information.
Criteria for these partnerships could be:
□ scientific and technical standing in a certain field.
□ centres of excellences reflecting the “state of the art”.
□ quality of technical and scientific leadership.
□ relations and research cooperations with other institutions on a national, regional and
international level.
□ Ability, capacity, readiness, also to assists centres throughout the world in working
towards the same high standards and to be member of a global community of centres.
They will explore new ways of working together, new types of comparative and global
analysis and are involved in the search for common solutions.
□ readiness for an ongoing exchange of knowledge two way communication process.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
13
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
□ in the academic sector successful collaboration depends strongly on a certain
personality. With the change of major personalities in a project evaluation of further
promising collaboration is needed.
The role of collaborating centres is being looked at more closely in a study
< ’ for
^ the
discussions at the upcoming Executive Board. Also a recent network meeting of the US
collaborating centres has made very useful suggestions for better use of collaborating
centres. These recommendations should be linked to this report.
3.2.3. Criteria for Partnerships with the corporate sector
Partnerships with the corporate sector at all levels from global to local are essential. The
public health sector has not and cannot make sufficient health gains on its own. Developing
partnerships with the corporate sector is a matter of balancing the potential benefits to be
gained against risks. The stakes are not trivial: If WHO is unable to engage powerful
private development forces in the struggle for better health, WHO may risk a diminution
in its relevance and role. Any potential negative impact of corporate sector partnerships
must be balanced against the cost of not having this type of partnership. ■
In considering “health related activities that the corporate sector carries out”, the reference
is not only to occupational health and safety, or the minimization of pollution and the
ecological impact of the industry, but also to the promotion of health values and a public
service role for private industry. For the advantages look also above 2.3.
The risks in developing partnerships with the corporate sector include the possibilities that,
(a) the WHO reputation will be used to sell goods and services for corporate gain, thus
diminishing WHO’s reputation as an impartial holder of health values,
“ (b) WHO’s judgment on a particular product, service, or corporate practice may be
compromised by financial support provided by the involved company or industry, and
(c) WHO involvement with an industry or company is perceived as acceptance by
WHO of unhealthy products, services, or practices.
To maximize the health benefits of partnerships with the corporate sector, while minimizing
risk, three questions must be addressed when considering such partnerships:
(1) What is WHO’s policy toward the particular industry involved?
(2) Is the individual company a suitable partner for WHO?
(3) Is the individual activity appropriate for a WHO partnership?
(1) WHO policy toward the industry involved
The involved industry must be a suitable partner for WHO. The following questions which
must be asked when developing a policy toward a specific industry:
□
□
□
Are the major products or services of the industry harmful to health?
Does the industry engage on a large scale in practices which are detrimental to
health?
Is the influence of WHO’s role in the partnership likely to do more good than the
damage done by harmful practices, products or services?
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
14
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
Health provider organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, health care technology
industries and similar organizations are generally quite suitable partners. The tobacco and
arms industries, which have indisputably negative health impacts, are clearly not suitable
partners. Many industries such as transportation industry, fast food industry, and chemical
industry have both a positive and a negative impact on health .
For those industries it is essential that WHO formulate a specific policy on the industry.
Should a public challenge be made about a WHO partnership with a specific industry, the
policy would serve to clarify WHO’s position on the industry and its views on the net
health benefit of working with the industry.
In several instances, WHO has a history of engagement with a particular industry. Past
contact with an industry should not be taken as a defacto policy. This is especially true if
the WHO unit initiating a partnership is different from the unit most familiar with the
adverse health consequences of the industry or potential for conflicts of interest. In such
instances, an explicit WHO policy is needed.
(2) Suitability of the individual company
Even when an individual industry is a suitable partner, individual companies may not be.
Additional factors to consider in evaluating partnerships with individual companies are:
■
the occupational health conditions on which products or services are produced
the environmental commitment of the company
the marketing and advertising practices of the company
the research and development policy and practice of the company
the regulatory compliance of the company
But also the subsidiary /.combine has to be looked at.
no past activities( not to exceed 3 Years) which might affect objectivity,
credibility of WHO.
These criteria are similar to those already being applied by a range of public agencies. They
would need to be interpreted against the backdrop of approved standards for best practice.
A screening could be done also by public agencies and media archives. If one company
produces at extreme low prices could this be a indicator of bad working conditions.
(3) Appropriateness of the individual activity
Partnerships often focus on a specific activity or set of activities. Most categories of
activities proposed in the context of a WHO partnership will be appropriate, since they will
aim at specific health policies or health practices. However, the following categories of
activities are not appropriate within a WHO partnership:
Activities which involve conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest.
Activities which benefit the corporate partner, but provide no clear health
benefit, benefit to WHO or benefit to Member States.
Conflict of interest is of particular concern for WHO programmes involved in setting
regulatory standards and other norms which may affect product costs, market demand, or
profitability of specific goods and services. Examples include norms for quality, safety,
efficacy, promotion practices, and information accuracy for pharmaceuticals; norms for
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
15
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
registration of herbal and other traditional medicines; chemical safety standards; and
nutritional guidelines.
To avoid conflict of interest -- real or perceived — the concerned WHO programmes must
establish procedures which ensure that
(a) final normative decisions are free from undue influence,
(b) industry funding is not used for salaries of staff involved in normative decisions,
and
(c) consultations and other normative activities never have their majority financing
from the concerned industry.
' In the context of an on-going partnership, some proposed activities may service public
relations and other interests of the external partners, but have no clear health benefit. In
general, such activities should be avoided.
No similar meeting has yet taken place with the private sector to discuss partnership as has
been undertaken with the NGOs (see above). Private sector comments on this paper were
solicited but this paper strongly recommends the establishment of a mechanism for regular
dialogue with the broad scope of the private sector with an interest in health. One such
attempt is under way in the health promotion division where a “private sector for health
promotion” group has been established.
4. The Process of Building and Maintaining Partnerships
Partnerships do not just come about. They need to be built with skill, care and mutual trust.
A partnership strategy needs to constantly keep in mind each of the following steps:
□
□
□
□
□
□
identifying opportunities
identifying potential partners
selecting the most suitable partners
negotiating /reaching a clear partnership agreement
maintaining the partnership
regularly evaluating the partnership.
Step 1: identifying opportunities
WHO is in a unique position to identify opportunities for partnerships in health
development. It has a global overview of priorities and needs, is already in contact with a
wide range of actors and has the standing and authority to approach new players. This is
the.crucial step for all partnership building which requires the new type of mind set referred
to above.
Step 2: identifying potential partners
In identifying partners WHO should always try to be inclusive instead exclusive. Equal
access possibilities for different partners should be provided whenever possible. WHO
should maintain an open and fair process in developing partnerships with partners on
similar projects.
If a partner approaches WHO, the joint areas of interest should be carefully examined.
While legal considerations are essential they cannot constitute the only element of decision
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
16
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
making: political concerns, long term gains, strategic/tactical considerations must enter the
equation.
Step 3: Selecting the most suitable partners.
The criteria mentioned under point 3.2. and particularly the compatibility with HF A and
the commitment to the partnership serve as an standard to select a partner.
Step 4: Negotiating /reaching a clear partnership agreement, with guidelines
Establishing partnerships is very time and resources consuming at the initially beginning.
But the added forces will save time and resources once the partnership is underway and is
maintained. The partners may not underestimate the effort needed before the starting point
of the partnership. Every partner has to analyse his starting position, objectives and means
of achieving them. Plans of action are a well-established procedure used with WHO
Collaborating Centres and, for example, with the WHO Healthy Cities “City Health Plan.”
The work contained in such a plan often represents a substantial bonus for health, with
relatively small investment of WHO resources. This stage is important in establishing
mutual trust, therefore the negotiator should not be exchanged. The negotiations> are
terminated by a letter of agreement which includes:
□
□
O
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
a clear cut goal of the partnership
measurable project objectives
human and financial resources and other contributions
responsibilities of each partner
organizational structure
duration of the agreement
communication during the partnership
possible benefit-sharing
conditions and mechanisms for amendments or termination of the agreement
method and timing of evaluation The agreement should include a timetable for action
and methods for evaluating the added value of the partnership, as well as its
contribution to improved health. Measurable objectives can help facilitate the reaching
of an understanding and provide better accountability. The guidelines must include an
agreement how to handle possible problems, conflicts or misunderstandings
As mentioned above WHO must build an institutional capacity for recording and evaluating
partnerships so it can advise on new efforts.
Step 5: Maintaining the partnership:
Regular communication, training and close monitoring increase trust, coordination and
avoid misunderstanding. This guarantees common approaches and further commitments.
Maintaining the Partnership is a crucial momentum to assure the success of the partnership.
Step 6: Evaluating the partnership:
The parties agree in advance how to evaluate and to which criteria/indicators will be used
to measure progress, success or failures. A small task force should begin with developing
a set of general indicators and analytic categories that can be adapted for specific
partnerships.
The above can be illustrated in the following graph:
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
17
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
Partnership development and maintenance
Identifying opportunities
Identifying potential
partners
Partnership formation
Development of organizational
structure and goals, agreements
Y
Implementation,
maintenances
Accomplishment of goals and
outcomes
<
Partner satisfaction, participation
and commitment
Long term maintenance
->
5. Conclusions
Partnerships for health will result in joint action that will lead to the attainment of common
predefined goals. Additional benefits are likely over time as a culture develops of “all”
being involved in HFA. A partnership for health approach also has consequences for both
training and research in public health. Training institutions must teach the skills needed to
form and maintain partnerships and a future oriented research agenda must study existing
(and failed) partnerships with a view to developing evaluation tools. If the partnership is
structured appropriately from the start and the principles accepted by all partners, it is likely
that legislative approaches and formal codes of conduct will be less important.
Increasingly the health sector at all levels will be called upon to play a motivational and
brokerage role for new types of partnerships for health development. It is only appropriate
that WHO should take the lead in such a development.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
18
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
During the preparation of this paper, we recognized many existing types of partnership at
WHO.
Unfortunately there is insufficient space to elaborate these projects any further in this paper.
We were able to include only a few examples, mainly at WHO /HQ. But the range is so
diverse that we propose to edit a book on partnerships in the last 50 years on the occasion
of the 50th anniversary.
Members of the Working Group
Dr C.M. Chollat-Traquet, Director PPE
Dr N.E. Collishaw, TOH
Mr S.S. Fluss, HPD
Dr T. -Godal, Director TDR
Dr G. Goldstein, UEH
Dr M. Jancloes, Director SSC
Dr F. Kaferstein, Director FSF
Dr Y. Kawaguchi, Director INA
Note:
Dr I.Kickbusch, Director HPR (Chair)
Dr J.D. Martin, SSC
Ms A. Mdhrle, HPR
Dr D. O’Byme, Chief HEP
Dr J. Quick, Director, DAP
Dr J.L. Tulloch, Director CHD
DrD. Yach, Chief PAC
This paper is based on the deliberations of the HQ working group set up in the context of Health for
All Renewal. It has been reworked based on comments from the members of the group, and a range
of external advisors, from the NGO, government and corporate sector. The chair would like to thank
all members for their input. She would also like to thank Ms. Anne Mdhrle who helped produce the final
version of this paper during her internship wjth WHO.
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
19
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
Resource list
Published documents:
Health Education Authority: Promoting health in partnerships with the Health Education
Authority’; An invitation to the pharmaceutical industry. London, 1997.
Kerr, Melville: Partnering and Health Development; The Kathmandu Connection.
University of Calgary Press/ International Development Research Centre, Calgary/ Ottawa
1996
Gaag van der, Jacques: Private and Public Initiatives; Working Together for Health and
Education. The World Bank, Washington, 1995
Green, Andrew/ Matthias, Ann: How should governments view nongovernmental
organizations? In: World Health Forum, Volume 17, page 42. 1996
The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum/ Tennyson, Rosalind: Tools for Partnership
building, 1994
Richards, Ronald W. (editor): Building Partnerships; Educating health professionals for
the communities they’ sen’e. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1996
Ritchie, Mark A./ Minsek, Marianne/ Conner, David W.: Roles and approaches of
nongovernmental organizations in health development, hi: World Health Forum, Volume
16, page 36, 1995.
Sheldon, Tony: Call for European cooperation in research. BMJ 3. May 1997, p.1300
Slater, Sharon (UNICEF)/ Saade, Camille (BASICS): Mobilizing the Commercial Sector
for Public Health Objectives, 1996
Soilver, Cary: Rotary's PolioPlus. In: World Health, 48th Year, No. 1, 1995
UNCTAD ( United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Programme on
• Transnational Corporations): Environmental Management in Transnational Corporations;
Report on the Benchmark Corporate Environmental Survey. United Nations, New York,
1993
UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS): The United Nations, NGOs and Global
Governance; Challenges for the 21st Century. UNCTAD/NGLS/64. Geneva, 1996
UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development): States ofDisarray;
The social effects of globalization. London, 1995
Uusitalo, Teuvo/Chowpradith: Internet as a toolfor distribution ofoccupational health and
safety’ information. In: Asian-pacific Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety, 1995,
volume 2, page 54-55
Wilson Larry/ Wilson Hersch: Stop Selling, Start Partnering. John Wiley & Sons Inc New
York, 1997.
WHO, D. Bettcher: Think and act globally and intersectorally to protect national health
(WHO/PPE/PAC/97.2) Geneva, 1997
WHO: Collaborating Centres, General Informations. Geneva, 1987
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
20
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
WHO: Division of control of tropical Diseases; Progress report 1996. (CTD/PR/97.1)
Geneva, 1997
WHO/ Global Programme for Vaccines and Immunization: Vaccine Supply and Quality;
Global Training Network. Geneva, 1997
WHO: Global Strategy on Occupational Health for All. (WHA 49.12) Geneva, 1996
WHO/ RO for Europe, edited by Tsouros, Agis D.: WHO Healthy cities Project; A Project
becomes a Movement; Review of Progress 1987-1990. Copenhagen. 1991
WHO/ UNICEF: State of the world's vaccines and immunization.(WHO/GPV/96.04)
Geneva, 1996
WHO: WHO Global Partnership Initiatives for health development. (WHO/INA/97.2)
Geneva, 1997
WHO: Principles governing Relations between WHO and NGOs. (WHA 40.25)
WHO: Renewed health-for-all strategy: draft policyfor the twenty-first centuiy. (EB100/2)
Geneva, April 1997
WHO: WHO and EMORY University Collaborative Support for Health development in
Africa. (WHO/INA/96.3). Geneva, 1996
WHO: WHO and University’ of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Collaborative Support for
Health Development. (WHO/INA/97.1) Geneva, 1997
WHO: WHO/ World Bank Partnership; Procedural strategies for implementation of
recommendations for health development. (WHO/INA/96.1) Geneva, 1996
Unpublished documents:
Centre of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Guidance for Collaboration with the
Private Sector. Atlanta, 1997
Heitkamp, Petra I.: Global Health Promoting Partnerships in WHO’s Organizational
Perspective. Final Thesis for Maastricht University. Maastricht, 1996
Health Programs and Services Branch CANADA-. Guidelines for working with the private
sector. OTTAWA, 1995
'
IMO (International Maritime Organization): Strengthening and expanding the resource base
ofIMO’s integrated technical co-operation programme (ITCP). (A6/A/19) London, 1994
ILO/ Minet, G.: Draft discussion paper on the relationship between the UN system and civil
society, March 1997
Makara, Peter/ Biichel, Bcttina/ Hagard, Spencer: Partnerships for Health Promotion-,
Background Paper prepared in the context of the 4th international Conference on Health
Promotion, April 1997
NGO Forum for Health: Statement to the 50th World Health Assembly. Geneva, May 1997
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
06264
21>( f 1
"“.A/
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum: Notes from the meeting of the international
partnership Advisory Group (IPAG) and other colleagues at World Bank, Washington, 23rd
May 1997
The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum/ Tennyson, Ros: Training Session: Building
Partnerships: Corporate Citizenship Conference at World Bank, Washington 2?nd May
1997
UNAIDS: Draft; The Expanded Response to HIV/AIDS: Working in Partnerships with the
Private Sector.Geneva, April 1997
UNESCO: Directives concerning UNESCO’s co-operation with private extra-budgetary
funding sources and their right to use UNESCO's name , emblem or any other type of
representation of the Organization’s corporate entity.
WHO: Division of control of tropical diseases and Regional Office for Africa: Draft
Guidelines for Implementation ofInsecticide-treated Mosquito Nets for the Prevention and
Control ofMalaria in Africa. (CTD/MAL/AFRO/97.4) Geneva, 1997
WHO: Kickbusch, Ilona: Creating a Global Web for Health; Challenges for WHO and its
Collaborating Centres. (Washccs.97).Presentation prepared for the 1st Meeting of US
Collaborating Centres Washington, June 1997
WHO: Kickbusch, Ilona: Intersectoral Action for Health. Health for All Rernewal Meeting,.
Halifax, Canada,April 1997
WHO: Kickbusch, Ilona: Global Experiences in Health Promotion since the Ottawa
Charter and Future Actions for International Collaboration Based on Its Framework’,
Special lecture given on the occasion of the International Forum on Health Promotion '96
Tokyo, September 1996
WHO: A New Global Health Policy for the Twenty-first Century: an NGO Perspective.
Outcome of a Formal Consultation with Nongovernmental Organizations. Geneva, 2-3
May 1997. (WHO/PPE/PAC/97.3), Geneva, 1997
WHO/ UNICEF; Woild Summit for Children: 21 health and health-related goals 19902000; Review of progress at mid-decade and preparations for the year 2000. Geneva, 1996
WHO. Lehtinen, Suvi/ Mikheev, Mikhail: WHO Workers ’ health programme and
Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health.(WHO/OCH/95.:2), Geneva, 1995
Press releases:
97th session of the Executive Boards Opens in Geneva. Diversifying Alliances: A new
Challenge for WHO. WHO/3, 15 January 1996
Rotary and UNAIDS; Working with New Generations for a Safer World.Press Release
UNAIDS, 8 July 1996
WHO and the Pharmaceutical Industry Join Forces to Combat Antibiotic Resistance.
WHO/80, 15 November 1996
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
22
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
International Alliance Formed for Elimination of Trachoma. WHO/82, 26 November 1996
Vaccine Industry Boots Global Polio Eradication. WHO/86, 9 December 1996
The Campaign against Polio: Sports Joins in; Kick Polio out of Africa. WHO Press Release,
26 April 1997
WHO, UNESCO Join Together to Fight Malaria. WHO/38, 7 May 1997
WHO Links With ASEAN to Promote Health. WHO/39, 12 May 1997
WHO,UNICEF Agree on Joint Strategy to Improve Water Supply and Strengthen Local
Health Systems. WHO/43, 23 May 1997
The Children’s Vaccine Initiative; “Working Together to Protect Children from Infectious
Diseases”. Fact Sheet N° 169, June 1997
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
23
Partnerships for Health in the 21st Century
HPR/97.6
List of Annexes
1.
Requirements for the designation of cities in the 1993-1997 phase of the WHO
Healthy Cities project
2.
Network of WHO Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health
Principles of Cooperation among the Beverage Alcohol Industry, Governments,
Scientific Researchers and the Public Health Community
4.
List of Partners in Health through 1996 of the Division of Control of tropical
Diseases
5.
FAO’s new policy on the private sector, in FAO contact, January 1997
wkpaper4.par
IK/am/cr/04.07.97
24
Annex 1
Requirements for the designation of cities in the 1993-1997 phase of the WHO Healthy Cities project
All project cities should establish a widely representative intersectoral policy committee with strong links
to the political decision-making system, to act as a focus for and to steer the project. All cities should
appoint a person to be politically responsible for the project.
All project cities should establish a visible project office which is accessible to the public, with a
coordinator, full-time staff and an operating budget for administration and management.
All project cities should develop a health for all policy based on the European targets for health for all and
prepare and implement a city health plan (or adapt an existing one) that addresses equity, environmental,
social and health issues, within two years after entering the second phase for old project cities and within
four years for new cities. Cities should secure the necessary resources to implement the policy.
All project cities should establish mechanisms for ensuring accountability, including presentation to the
city council of short annual city health reports that address health for all priorities.
All project cities should take active steps to take on the strategic action priorities of the WHO Regional
Office for Europe, particularly implement the European Tobacco Action Plan and the European Alcohol
Action Plan.
All project cities should establish mechanisms for public participation and strengthen health advocacy at
city level by stimulating the visibility of and debate on public health issues and by working with the
media.
All project cities should carry out population health surveys and impact analyses and, in particular, assess
and address the needs of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged social groups.
All project cities should ensure full and active participation by the politically responsible person and the
project coordinator in the project business meetings at which policy and management decisions arc taken.
Also attendance by the city delegations at the project’s symposia is necessary to the extent (i.e. size of
delegation) that is feasible without damaging the primary emphasis which must be on local actions.
All project cities should report back regularly to WHO (according to an agreed five-year plan and as
negotiated at subsequent business meetings) on progress achieved and share information and experience
with other city partners. All project cities must link up to the WHO Regional Office for Europe electronic
mail/bulletin board.
Participation in MCAP work is essential. It is up to the project cities to decide which MCAPs they want
to participate in. Participation should be active and the work linked to/integrated with the overall project
in the city.
All project cities should explore ways of providing support and resources for overall promotion and
development of the Healthy Cities network.
All project cities should take active steps to cooperate locally with other networks and institutions such
as schools of public health, departments relevant to urban health and development, medical associations
and pharmaceutical associations.
All project cities should develop active working links with the other project cities, through city visits and
by fostering technical and cultural exchanges and hosting Healthy Cities meetings and events.
The cities which were members of the network in 1987-1992 and which remain in the 1993-1998 project
must recognize that an important part of their role will be to provide advice and support to the new
projects cities. This process could include sharing experience on ho to start up the project, running joint
technical meetings and assisting in the preparation of project resource materials. WHO could facilitate
twinning arrangements between old and new cities.
Annex 2
Network of WHO Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health
The Network of the 58 WHO Collaborating Centre in Occupational Health was created in June
1990, when the national institutes of Occupational Health convened a meeting in Helsinki. The
first meeting of the Network member institutes was held in Moscow in September 1992.
The network is a powerful and practical tool in implementing various activities of the WHO/
Workers’ Health Programme (WHO) and makes the best possible combination available for the
programme.The adoption of the Global Strategy on Occupational Health for All by the 49. WHA
1996, prepared by the Network, was a big success. Furthermore this kind of strong cooperation
offers an excellent opportunity for effective use of existing knowledge and for creating synergism
in development of Occupational Health at the national level.
Building and coordinating the network was done by the OCH Unit The network is strongly
coordinated by the WHO/OCH, but an alternative would be that one Collaborating Centre
overtakes the coordination part.
The Planning group, consisting of 8 Collaborating Centres which meet once a year, serves as an
advisory body to the WHO/OCH Unit in deciding a comprehensive strategy plan with the priority
programme for the Unit. The strategy offers a basis for the Collaborating Centres to select the
topics, targets and forms of their collaborative contributions. Example of priority activities?
□ . training at different levels, especially in developing countries , including producing
training and educational material.
□ preparation of guidelines in different aspects of occupational health practice
Mechanisms for exchanging information between the network:
□ Meeting of the Collaborating Centres every two years.
□ Study groups on selected priority problems to gather the existing knowledge and
information available and to find out the gaps in the knowledge. Information is published
as WHO Technical Reports.
□ Continuous communication of information and feedbacks between WHO and the
Collaborating Centres. Consequently/ therefore WHO/OCH has the action plans and
accomplished results of the Collaborating Centres and can make full use off their
published results, as well as of the joint publications of the Collaborating Centres.
□ Publications inform the Collaborating Centres of WHO objectives, priorities and
procedures and of each other s’ current and planned activities.
□ An International Directory of the WHO Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health
is available on database and databanks.
□ The WHP Newsletter, published three times a year by NIOSH (US National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health), serves as a channel of up-to-date information on current
activities of both the WHO /WHP and the Collaborating Centres.
Another Newsletter on Maritime Occupational Health, published by the Institute of
Maritime and Tropical Medicine, in Poland, plays the same role for those Collaborating
Centres in dealing with health of seafarers.
□ Also exists a electronical board for information exchanges.
□ To monitor the WHO Colllaborating Centres’ work, each centre is required to present its
annual report in a given form not later than February of the following year.
3
£ d
° - a?
O
Q
ST
£
p
oG>
Networking of the Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health
rd
INFORMATION ELEMENT
II
Reports on activities of the CCs
• Meetings
Meeting of the
CCs in OH
(every two years)
®®
• Meeting Reports
ORGANIZATIONAL
FRAMEWORK
SUBSTANCE CONTENT
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
FOR ALL
• elimination of risks
• promotion of health
i
Planning Group
(once a year)
• Technical Reports
p- "u
g3
S
p
—’ ’ *T-t
S' 2 3I-/ (D
£. G’-i
g o
CD
tn
p
UQ
CD
o UQ
o o
n>
r? "O
Q
o 72.
co co
Division of work
between the CCs
DO
g
OQ
Solutions to prac
tical OH problems
• Training Courses /~
p
o
i—ht
o cr
5’ o
O
r-*
cr . . p
S'
£
O
• Guidelines
• Electronic
X
p
Selection of pro
gramme priorities
Directory of the CCs in OH
• WHP Newsletter
C-
‘-U S£ P
S* 3
yo £
o C?. 5’
o p
*
</)
WHO/OCH Unit
WHP
(permanent)
O
P-
"S' Er
cr
g o’ OQ 2
5? zr
, p
p
o
n
3 o.
CT
(JQ
(0
zr zr
3 G> P o
o’
P g o
Information about international and
national OH priorities
• Declaration on
• Occupational
Health for all
£
s
?
Advice on priorities
in OH
• Global Strategy
a
cn
g :□o
CL
G>
□
o
GO
CH)
CQJ
CCD
p
Bulletin Board
Multilateral and bilateral Collaboration j
Collaborating Centres In Occupational Health
• flexible to respond to changing problems of the
working life
• strong through network
The overall framework of networking is shown in Figure 1.
- S'
3
o
zr. mo rC
.p
Global Strategy
Declaration
WHP Programme Priorities
u o
i
o
o
scl —mo* nj□c
o S
a
s
EL
Annex 3
PRINCIPLES OF COOPERATION
AMONG THE BEVERAGE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENTS,
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS, AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNITY
Following extensive consultations with individuals and organizations in many countries, a
group of experts met in Dublin on 26 - 28 May, 1997 at the invitation of the National College of
Industrial Relations and the International Center for Alcohol Policies. At the end of the meeting,
. in their individual capacities, they adopted by consensus the "Dublin Principles", and expressed the
hope that these Principles will be generally adopted.
Participants included scientists, industry executives, government officials, public health
experts, and individuals from intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations.
Preamble: The Ethics of Cooperation
The common good of society requires all its members to assume their fair share of social
responsibility. In areas related to alcohol consumption, individuals and the societies in which they
live need to be able to make informed choices. In order to further public knowledge about alcohol
’ and prevent its misuse, governments, the beverage alcohol industry, scientific researchers, and the
public health community have a common responsibility to work together as indicated in these
Principles.
I.
Alcohol and Society: Cooperation among Industry, Governments, the Community, and
Public Health Advocates
A.
Governments, nongovernmental organizations, public health professionals, and
members of the beverage alcohol industry should base their policies and positions
concerning alcohol-related issues upon the fullest possible understanding of available
scientific evidence.
B.
Consistent with the cultural context in which they occur, alcohol policies
should reflect a combination of government regulation, industry self
regulation, and individual responsibility.
1
c.
Consumption of alcohol is associated with a variety of beneficial and adverse
health and social consequences, both to the individual and to society.
Governments, intergovernmental organizations, the public health community, and
members of the beverage alcohol industry, individually and in cooperation with
others, should take appropriate measures to combat irresponsible drinking and
inducements to such drinking. These measures could include research, education,
and support of programs addressing alcohol-related problems.
D.
Only the legal and responsible consumption of alcohol should be promoted
by the beverage alcohol industry and others involved in the production, sale,
regulation, and consumption of alcohol.
E.
Government and industry both have a responsibility to ensure strict control
of product safety.
F.
To enable individuals to make informed choices about drinking, all those who
provide the public with information about the health and societal impact of.
alcohol should present such information in an accurate and balanced manner.
1.
Advertising of beverage alcohol products should be subject to
reasonable regulation, and/or industry self-regulation, and should not
promote excessive or irresponsible drinking.
2.
Educational programs should play an important role in providing
accurate information about drinking and the risks associated with
drinking.
II.
Alcohol Research: Cooperation among Industry, Governments, and the Scientific and
Academic Communities
A.
To increase knowledge about alcohol in all its aspects, the academic and
scientific communities should be free to work together with the beverage
alcohol industry, governments, and nongovernmental organizations.
B.
The beverage alcohol industry, governments, and nongovernmental
organizations should support independent scientific research which
2
contributes to a better understanding of the use, misuse, effects, and
properties of alcohol and the relationships among alcohol, health, and society.
c.
The academic and scientific communities should adhere to the highest
professional, scientific, and ethical standards in conducting and reporting on
alcohol research, whatever the source of funding for such research.
D.
All those concerned in a research undertaking, including funders, should
avoid arrangements that might compromise the intellectual integrity and
freedom of inquiry fundamental to scientific research and academic
institutions.
1.
When seeking support, scientific researchers should disclose any
personal, economic, or financial interest that might directly and
significantly affect the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, or
reporting of any research project.
2.
Scientific researchers should acknowledge the source(s) of funding
of their research activities in any report of such research.
E.
Researchers should be free to disseminate and publish the results of their
work. In order to protect proprietary information or trade secrets that do not
have public health implications, dissemination and publication may’be
subjected to reasonable and ethical restrictions agreed in advance.
3
PROGRESS REPORT 1996
Annex 4
DIVISION OF CONTROL OF TROPICAL DISEASES
PAHTNEHS IN HEALTH
Garton G.A.H., AusUalia
___________
German Pharma Health Fund EV, Germany
Tabic 1 lists the Division's Partners in Health through 1996. Further
details regarding specific funding Io each activity can be obtained in the
Division’s Financial Report. We should like to thank our contributors for
their continuous support and in-kind donations which have greatly
assisted our work, and as a result achievements over the past year.
DONORS________
AGFUHO (Arab Gulf Programme for UN Development Organizations)
Agrevo Environmental Health Lid, UK
_________
Al Ahlia Insurance Company, Kuwait
Arab Fund lor Social and Economic Development
_______
Australia
_____
Dabolna Bioenvironmenlal Control Centre Lid., Hungary
Dader Al Mufla and Brothers Co., Kuwait
Bank ol Kuwait and the Middle Easl K.S.C., Kuwait
Bayer AG, Germany_____
Behbehani, Aster & Salman, Kuwait
~
Behbehani, Mohammed Saleh & Reza Yousef, Kuwait
B e Igiy m
'
"
“
Diunei Oarussaiarn ____
Chamber ol Commerce and Industry, Kuwait
Chemmova Agro NS, Denmark__________
Ciba Geigy AG, SwiUerland__________ __
Cyanamid Inlemalional Corporation Lid,, USA.
Danish BilKariiasis Laboratory, Denmark
Denmark
Dow Elanco Lid, UK__________
FE^C Corporalion USA _____
France____________
Francome Fabrications Lid., UK
ACTIVITIES_____________
Trypanosomiasis__________
WHOPES_______________
Dracunculiasls & CTD Activities
CTD Activities
Dengue_______
•______
WHOPES___________ _
CTD Activities__________
Leishmaniasis & CTD Activities
WHOPES and Training______
Leishmaniasis__________ /
CTD Actvilies
Malaria/CTD Activities/
Trypanosomiasis__________
Malaria__________
Leishmaniasis_________
WHOPES_______________
Schistosomiasis
WHOPES
Training
________
Onchocerciacis
WHOPES_______________
WHOPES_______________
Leishmaniaisis/Trypanosomlasis
WHOPES
DIVISION OF CONTROL OF TROPICAL DISEASES
Malaria_____________
Intestinal
Parasitic
Schislos-omiasis/Opisthorchiasis
Germany____________ ..
Schistosomiasis control
Global 2000 Inc, ol The Carter Center, USA_____
Dracuncifiasis_____________
Health and Development International, USA
CTD Actr.Tlies______________
Hoechst Shering AgrEvo SA, France__________
Leishmaniasis______________
Igeba Geraelebau GMDH, Germany___________
WHOPES_________________
International Development Association, USA
Malaria___________________
Islamic Organization lor Medical Sciences, Kuwait
Dracunojliasis______________
Italy
Traininolnl. Parasites/
Schislosomiasis/Malaria______
Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
Malaria___________________
Japan_______________
Malaria/Dracunculiasis_______
Kuwait___________ _______________ ____ Malaria/Schislosomiasis______
Kuwait Fund lor Arab Economic Development________ CTD Activities______________
Mitsui Toalsu Chemicals Inc., Japan
WHOPES •________________
Dr Nasser Mohamed Nasser Al Sayer
CTD Aclr/ilies
______________________
Netherlands '______ __________ '
Malaria/Trypanosomiasis/Veclor borne diseases
Organization ol Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Dracunculiasis
____________________
Phone Poulenc Agrochimie SA, France
WHOPES______________
Sandouq Zakat-Bait Al Tamweel, Kuwait____________ CTD Acthilies__________________________
Smilhkline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, UK
Training _____________________________
Spain_____________
Malaria
________________________
Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd., Japan ______________ WHOPES_____________________________
Sweden________
Malaria
Takeda Chemical Industries, Lid., Japan
WHOPES_____________________________
UNICEF______________
HeallhMap
______________________
UNDP
Schislosomiasis/lnteslinal Parasites_________
United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
Malaria/Dracunculiasis___________________
United Stales of America________
Malaria____________________________ ___
Zeneca Agrochemicals. UK
WHOPES
PROGRESS REPORT 1996
5
I
■
• I
A
LiV U- u ltd
Inside Internet users now can view
3 000 FAO photos...............
For first time a communication expert
included on emergency mission ....
3
Viet Nam to provide 120 experts
to Special. Programme project . .
4
4
Apoyo a pequenos productores
5
From the ^O's new pclicy on the-private sector
DirectorGeneral
lip
a
' V■
The private sector will provide a large percentage of the investment, new technology and
farming and management systems needed to achieve global food security in the 21st centuiy.
FAO has therefore initiated a new policy to expand and intensify cooperation with the private
sector at national, regional and international levels.
One of my early decisions at FAO was to establish a new Unit for Cooperation with the
Private Sector and NGOs (TCDN). The unit provides a focal point for policy relations
with the private sector, and a vehicle for promoting and coordinating FAO’s overall
cooperation with all sectors of civil society.
A consultative process with key private sector organizations is now under way
to help develop strategies and operating guidelines for cooperation in the follow up
to the World Food Summit. In fact, I have already met with private sector groups and
have made statements to meetings of the International Federation of Agriculture
Producers (IFAP) and the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA).
” KnS
<'■
7A
>5 •
.
■
An additional USS 19 billion in agriculture-related investment per year will be
needed from the private sector if food security needs are to be met. This is in
addition to USS5 billion from government sources and US$7 billion from official
development finance.
Private investment should be drawn primarily from domestic savings at the
8^1 household level but other national and external private investment sources will be an
essential complement. The private sector should also play a leading role in
■V'" H
developing and transferring new technologies, systems and skills required to realise
irector-General Jacques Diouf ^00(^ security goals.
>
*
? z■
I am hopeful that the private sector will take a particular interest in the Special
Programme for Food Security, already established in 16 countries with a pilot phase that will
test and develop economically viable food production systems. Funds permitting, we intend
to extend it progressively to all the 82 low-income food-deficit countries.
The fertilizer, pesticide and agro chemical industries could make a substantial
contribution to the Programme, especially in the framework of Integrated Pest Management
and Integrated Plant Nutrient systems. In addition, processing and storage technologies need
private sector help.
■
January
. FAO Contact i
i
is published monthly by the
^Information Division (GH).
The opening section.
"From the Oirector-Generar, is |
published in English. French. ‘
Spanish and Arabic The English •
version is distributed at FAO
headquarters but staff may
obtain other versions
at their registries.
Articles in other sections are
published in the language in
which they are submitted.
19 9 7
I am encouraging governments to involve their national private sectors - including
farming, processing, marketing and trading - in Special Programme initiatives. In Kenya, for
example, private enterprises are assuming responsibility for seed supply and produce
marketing in the pilot phase.
The farmer himself will be the most important source of investment, but the local
private sector will also be encouraged co invest in providing agricultural inputs and
marketing services. Large national and regional investments in input production and
processing will hopefully also be feasible.
FAO is helping member countries create the policy, institutional, legal and investment
framework to support the emergence and growth of an effective private sector.
Investment Centre reaches out to new partners
FAO's Investment Centre develops projects for the World Bank and regional banks and
will now extend its cooperation to sub-regional and national banks and other private
I investment institutions.
Comments, questions,
suggestions of topics for future
articles and contributions of
information are welcome.
Direct them to FAO Contact
E-mail; gii-rcgistiy@fao.Qrg
• fox +39-6-5225-3152
mail: GUI. Room C124. FAO.
Viale dellc Terme di Caracalla,
C0100 Rome.
FAO data and information
are available on Internet at
/ (gopher://gopher.fao.org) and
(http://www.iao.org).
i
With the suppon of FAO technical divisions, the Investment Centre is expanding its
private-sector-related, activities. For example, in Central and Eastern Europe, the Centre is
helping develop wholesale market companies and farmers' marketing networks to replace
the former state-operated systems. In another new approach, the Centre is exploring the
feasibility of an agribusiness venture capital fund and project development facility in Uttar
Pradesh, India.
Other FAO units are carrying out training programmes, developing and distributing
software programs for micro-credit organisations and agri-markets with the aim of improving
the collection and dissemination of agricultural trade data.
FAO plans to tackle boldly the food and agriculture problems of the 21st century. With
the continuing decline in official development assistance for agriculture, we must expand
and strengthen the Organization's role as an honest broker for mobilising managerial, •
technological, scientific, financial and other resources through new alliances with private
industry, NGOs, foundations and other key non-governmental actors.
Thanks to the Organization’s reputation as "a centre of excellence", its credibility with
governments and its ability to help attract complementary partners and resources for such
initiatives, I believe that FAO has a comparative advantage for such an honest-broker role.
• Private sector was a major contributor;to the World Food Summit ,
■
•
"
■
..
/
r
•.
:
-
/
....
>
:
-:
; .The World Food. Summit 'provides-: a good example of theyaluable-contnljutio
come from sources other than traditional donors. While, government contributions were ■
■ extremely important donations, from, other partners: such, as private, companies and their
’i.associations, NGOs and foundations were also impressive. A total of 75 companies .
contributed in cash and kind to the Summit One national FAO association acred as a
i
conduit for contributions from a further 200 companies.
i
I
2
- Media
6264.pdf
Position: 2240 (4 views)