Rituals of global health: Negotiating the World Health Assembly

Irwin, Rachel; Smith, Richard

doi:10.1080/17441692.2018.1504104

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, we present the multi-stakeholder participation model as one of the appropriate models to be implemented in combating COVID-19. We need to create effective mechanisms through which to enable collaboration between international, national and regional organisations, and we should strive to establish pathways through which multiple actors can work together [175] and create synergy among society, economy and development [176]. An understanding of pandemic risks in all its dimensions, interlinking of disaster management and development planning is required [177].…”

Section: Suggestions For Effective Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multistakeholder Participation in Disaster Management—The Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is affecting society’s health, economy, environment and development. COVID-19 has claimed many lives across the globe and severely impacted the livelihood of a considerable section of the world’s population. We are still in the process of finding optimal and effective solutions to control the pandemic and minimise its negative impacts. In the process of developing effective strategies to combat COVID-19, different countries have adapted diverse policies, strategies and activities and yet there are no universal or comprehensive solutions to the problem. In this context, this paper brings out a conceptual model of multistakeholder participation governance as an effective model to fight against COVID-19. Accordingly, the current study conducted a scientific review by examining multi-stakeholder disaster response strategies, particularly in relation to COVID-19. The study then presents a conceptual framework for multistakeholder participation governance as one of the effective models to fight against COVID-19. Subsequently, the article offers strategies for rebuilding the economy and healthcare system through multi-stakeholder participation, and gives policy directions/decisions based on evidence to save lives and protect livelihoods. The current study also provides evidence about multidimensional approaches and multi-diplomatic mechanisms during the COVID-19 crisis, in order to examine dimensions of multi-stakeholder participation in disaster management and to document innovative, collaborative strategic directions across the globe. The current research findings highlight the need for global collaboration by working together to put an end to this pandemic situation through the application of a Multi-Stakeholder Spatial Decision Support System (MS-SDSS).

show abstract

Section: Suggestions For Effective Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multistakeholder Participation in Disaster Management—The Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[21][22][23][24] In 2016, the WHA also approved a Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA), allowing greater non-state actor participation, including by businesses and business-interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [1] . Stakeholders involved in advocating for breastfeeding under the International Code oppose loosening restrictions on participation of the CMF industry in WHA processes 25 in light of the industry's past history of working to weaken the Code, arguing that FENSA does not include adequate safeguards against conflicts of interest. 20,26,27 At the same time, WHO's approach to conflict-of-interest screening does not allow the relatively unfettered and direct participation by industry groups in health policy-making processes that is standard under the CAC's committee system and have been protested by industry groups claiming it is extremely restrictive.…”

Section: Implications For the Publicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Endnotes [1] Stakeholders involved in advocating for breastfeeding under the International Code opposed participation of the CMF industry in WHA processes because of the clear conflicts of interest it would involve 25 and the industry's past history of working to weaken the initial provisions of the Code, and then circulating a watered-down interpretation of the International Code after it was adopted. 20 [2] A companion report for that resolution 5 cites relevant Codex provisions including the 'commodity-specific' 1981 Standard on Infant Formula (CXS 72-1981), the 1987 Standard on Follow-up Formula (CXS 156-1987) and a number of 'horizontal standards' including the Standard for Labelling of and Claims for Foods for Special Medical Purposes (CXS 180-1991) under the CCFL.…”

Section: Ethical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What You Don’t Know About the Codex Can Hurt You: How Trade Policy Trumps Global Health Governance in Infant and Young Child Nutrition

Russ

Baker

Byrd

et al. 2021

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: International food standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), have become more prominent in international trade politics, since being referenced by various World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. The new standing of the CAC imposes limits on domestic public health regulation. We show this includes implementation of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. Methods: Using trade in commercial milk formulas (CMF) as a case study, we collected detailed data on interventions across various WTO bodies between 1995 and 2019. We used language from these interventions to guide data collection on member state and observer positions during the CAC review of the Codex Standard for Follow-up Formula (CSFUF), and during CAC discussions on the relevance of WHO policies and guidelines. Results: Exporting member states made 245 interventions regarding CMFs at the WTO, many citing deviations from standards set by the CAC. These did not occur in formal disputes, but in WTO Committee and Accession processes, toward many countries. In Thailand, complaints are linked to weakened regulation. Exporters also sought to narrow the CSFUF at the CAC in a way that is at odds with recommendations in the International Code. Tensions are growing more broadly within the CAC regarding relevance of WHO recommendations. Countries coordinated during WTO committee processes to advocate for reapportioning core WHO funding to the CAC and in order to further influence standard-setting. Conclusion: The commercial interests of the baby food industry are magnifying inconsistencies between health guidelines set by the WHO, standard-setting at the CAC, and functions of the WTO. This poses serious concerns for countries’ abilities to regulate in the interests of public health, in this case to protect breastfeeding and its benefits for the health of infants, children and mothers.

show abstract

“…The section that follows thereafter will discuss the spatiotemporal dimension of WHO and of global health governance that was thereby foregrounded. Due to spatial constraints, both sections will focus primarily on the macro level which has received less attention in the literature than the micro level (Irwin and Smith, 2019;Eckl, 2017Eckl, , 2021.…”

Section: Paying Tribute To the Spatiotemporality Of Global Health Governance: The Underlying Research Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Focal Times and Spaces: How Ethnography Foregrounds the Spatiotemporality of International Organizations and Global Governance

Eckl

2021

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on a long-term political ethnography of sites of global health governance, the paper makes methodological and substantive contributions. First of all, it shows that ethnography induces researchers to experience international organizations (IOs) and global governance as spatiotemporal phenomena. This experience overlaps with the lived realities of practitioners and spotlights aspects that are otherwise easily overlooked. Both practitioners and ethnographers have to be in specific spaces at particular times. This practical challenge illustrates that there are focal times and spaces, which are linked to the cyclical and sited character of global health governance. These focal times and spaces provide an important coordination mechanism and ease the general flow of knowledgewithin IOs and between IOs and their environment. However, there is also the constant danger that they develop a self-referential life of their own and become disconnected from other processes. Similarly, not just researchers but also practitioners are struggling to develop a comprehensive understanding of IOs since they experience them only partially and in specific settings. Thus, a spatiotemporal account highlights both overlooked links and unexpected disconnections. The conclusion mentions that the current -COVID-19-inducedmainstreaming of digital technologies will impact the spatiotemporal dimension of global health governance. Policy Implications• Policy makers should more systematically acknowledge the contribution of focal times and spaces to the coordination of global governance processes and to the flow of knowledge.• At the same time, policy makers have to pay attention to the danger that these focal times and spaces can develop a self-referential life of their own and become disconnected from other processes.• Whether policy makers encounter global health at global focal times and spaces or in specific local settings, each firsthand experience has its specific limits. Policy makers should be aware of the limits of their own first-hand experiences and systematically complement them with other sources of information, including the experiences and views that others bring to the table.• The annual governance cycle links various meetings in a sequential manner and decisions are often precooked at meetings that take place before the main governance bodies convene. While some policy makers prefer this kind of upstreaming of decision making in order to smoothen the working of the governance bodies, they should not lose sight of the potentially negative consequences, for example regarding inclusiveness and transparency.

show abstract

Rituals of global health: Negotiating the World Health Assembly

Cited by 7 publications

References 16 publications

Multistakeholder Participation in Disaster Management—The Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Multistakeholder Participation in Disaster Management—The Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic

What You Don’t Know About the Codex Can Hurt You: How Trade Policy Trumps Global Health Governance in Infant and Young Child Nutrition

Focal Times and Spaces: How Ethnography Foregrounds the Spatiotemporality of International Organizations and Global Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About