A conference on Migration and Social Policy: Comparing European and African Regional Integration Policies and Practices was held on 19-20 April 2012 in Pretoria, South Africa. It brought together participants from the South African government, UN organisations, national research centres and NGOs to underscore the potentials to develop more effective regional social policy, improve policies for social protection and meet the social protection needs of cross-border migrants. Three main themes emerged. First, lessons can be drawn from cross-regional research experiences, in particular new directions of regionalism and its implications for migration and socioeconomic and political rights. Second, stakeholders should consider going beyond "migration management", toward more coherent governance systems that advance the social dimensions of migration. This approach could lead to more positive development outcomes of migratory processes. Third, looking at regional integration through the lens of the free movement concept was considered a useful approach to map out the advantages of advancing free movement in a regional context, for example with regard to already existing institutions and common regulations. Other issues raised during the conference included challenges presented by informal labour markets, irregular migration and insufficient formal social protection mechanisms; the lack of political will to promote free movement; and the need to construct a regional identity, in particular among civil society.
Governance and participation in health
Regional organisations can effectively promote regional health diplomacy and governance through engagement with regional social policy. Regional bodies make decisions about health challenges in the region, for example, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the World Health Organisation South East Asia Regional Office (WHO-SEARO). The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has a limited health presence as a regional organisation and diplomatic partner in health governance. This article identifies how SADC facilitates and coordinates health policy, arguing that SADC has the potential to promote regional health diplomacy and governance through engagement with regional social policy. The article identifies the role of global health diplomacy and niche diplomacy in health governance. The role of SADC as a regional organisation and the way it functions is then explained, focusing on how SADC engages with health issues in the region. Recommendations are made as to how SADC can play a more decisive role as a regional organisation to implement South–South management of the regional social policy, health governance and health diplomacy agenda.
The aim of the Round Table was to build upon the work of the Advisory Group on Civil Society and Aid Effectiveness (AG-CS). A first point of consensus to emerge from RT6 was recognition of the many roles of civil society, and of the importance and value of civil society organisations (CSOs) as development actors in their own right and as aid recipients, donors and partners. A way forward was proposed, involving donors, governments, and CSOs themselves, and shared leadership for different aspects of this work. It includes working together to provide a more enabling environment for CSOs, working on how CSOs can develop more effective partnerships with each other, including North- South, South-South, global networks and national umbrella organisations, offering support for the CSO-led Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness and preparing the ground for CSO engagement in the High-Level 4, ensuring that a multi- stakeholder perspective on CSO effectiveness is a major theme of HLF4.
This report of the assessment panel which the WHO commissioned on its response to the Ebola outbreak was meant to review the roles and responsibilities at the three levels of the organization (headquarters, regions, countries) and the WHO’s actions in the course of the outbreak. The report and recommendations fall under the following three headings: the International Health Regulations (2005); WHO’s health emergency response capacity; and WHO’s role and cooperation with the wider health and humanitarian systems. It found Member States have largely failed to implement the core capacities, particularly under surveillance and data collection, which are required under the International Health Regulations (2005); in violation of the Regulations, nearly a quarter of WHO’s Member States instituted travel bans and other additional measures not called for by WHO, which significantly interfered with international travel, causing negative political, economic and social consequences for the affected countries; and significant and unjustifiable delays occurred in the declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by WHO. The Panel concluded that WHO be the lead health emergency response agency but that this requires that a number of organizational and financial issues be addressed urgently. The Panel considered that during the Ebola crisis, the engagement of the wider humanitarian system came very
late in the response.
From 29 November to 3 December 2010, the Tenth Meeting of the States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty took place in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss implementation of the global Mine Ban Treaty of 1997. Twenty-three states parties with significant numbers of landmine survivors presented their activities and the challenges faced so far in implementing the victim assistance actions of the Cartagena Action Plan (CAP), which is the plan devised to help countries implement the requirements of the Ban Treaty. The CAP stresses the need to improve quality of and access to services – including health and rehabilitation services – by disabled people. Reports indicated that, by the end of 2009, most survivors had not experienced significant overall improvements in quality or access to a range of necessary services, while nearly as many countries reported a decline in services, due mostly to deteriorating security and the downturn in the global economy. A number of east, central and southern African countries participated in the meeting. Uganda reported that its victim assistance plans had been revised or redrafted according to CAP principles, while the Democratic Republic of Congo reported drafting victim assistance plans that were pending adoption and also noted establishing a national commission for the rehabilitation of survivors. Mozambique reported that survivors are assisted through the national disability framework but failed to describe its efforts to assist persons with disabilities in any detail.
Between 2018 and 2020 in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) the Ebola epidemic hit an area of ongoing hostilities among dozens of belligerents, including Congolese security forces. The Riposte, a combined national and international response to contain the disease, was not only affected by the violence, but the authors argue may have unintentionally contributed to the conflict. Despite the vast sums spent, Ebola continued to spread in North Kivu and Ituri provinces, which were already hard hit by decades of armed violence. On the ground, in an effort to protect itself from armed attacks and reduce community resistance, the Riposte through agents of the National Intelligence Agency (ANR), in collaboration with the Congolese Ministry of Health and the WHO (in contradiction with UN standard operating procedure), agreed to pay both government security forces and non-state armed groups. Over 20 months, between $489 million and $738 million was spent on Ebola in this part of the country. The authors describe the impact of these payments. By engaging with some armed groups in conflict with others the Riposte is reported to have become embroiled in the violence. The authors point to how this monetized the violence, with some armed groups seeking to prolong the epidemic to continue to profit from what has been called “Ebola Business.” The report cautions against making payments to parties to conflict in exchange for access so as not to inadvertently turn humanitarian operations into a source of profit for those involved in conflict and undermine the impartiality of humanitarian action.
WHO Watch is a civil society project, coordinated by People’s Health Movement (PHM) and Medicus Mundi International, directed both to supporting WHO and holding it accountable. WHO Watch involves a team of ‘watchers’ attending WHO governing body meetings, lobbying delegates, speaking from the floor, documenting and reporting on the debate and the decisions, and preparing commentaries on each of the agenda items. These commentaries are designed to support progressive delegations (in particular from smaller countries who have only limited human resources to devote to these issues) as well as arguing for progressive outcomes. The Sixty Ninth World Health Assembly (WHA69) convened in Geneva from 23 – 28 May 2016. The Watch reports on the debates on various items, including: managing conflicts of interest in global health; maternal, infant and young child nutrition; ending childhood obesity; ageing; air pollution; the ‘sound’ management of chemicals; antimicrobial resistance; polio; managing global health emergencies; the health of migrants; lessons from Ebola in West Africa; HIV, viral hepatitis, STIs; vaccination; global health workforce issues; medicines and intellectual property.
Health experts and activists have heavily criticised African governments for failing to collaborate with civil society organisations (CSOs) on health research and health policy development. Governments tend to perceive CSOs as a threat because they are independent, often critical of government and see their role as holding politicians accountable, health activists said during the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Ministerial Forum for Health Research in Bamako, Mali. As a result, many governments ignore calls for public participation. Without inclusion of CSOs, African governments' efforts to create sustainable health systems would fail. With increased partnerships between researchers, governments and CSOs, the health agenda could be taken forward more efficiently and in a more equitable way.
Residents of Angolan capital city Luanda's compounds hit by cholera voiced dissatisfaction at the local Government's distribution of treated water as a measure to arrest the spread of the disease. Since the epidemics was declared in Luanda on 13 February, some areas most affected by the disease, have been supplied with water by the Luanda Government (GPL). In order to overcome the poor supply of water to the populations at a time cholera is severely hitting the capital, GPL decided to supply twice a week.
According to this paper, the current widespread use of the term ‘resilience’ in development circles is at risk of being diluted by current ways of thinking about change because the term has not brought about genuine change in thinking about social systems. The author argues that if the term ends up being used in a very linear manner, where change is controllable from the outside and follows a linear path, it will have failed to achieve its mission. The author calls for a break from expert-led technocratic solutions and renewed focus on human agency as the main vehicle for change. Resilience-based thinking underlines the importance of leadership and reinvents the task of the international community as supporting constructive leadership rather than designing expert solutions. For leaders, it opens up space for creative thinking and hybrid, localised solutions.