Matters that matter to us

Series of policy debates hosted by the Geneva Global Health Hub (G2H2), 20-24 January 2025, ahead of WHO EB 156

This coming 2025 – amidst political turmoil and concerning geopolitical scenarios – prospects to be a challenging year for civil society organizations worldwide. To ensure that health-related human rights are not overlooked neither at the international negotiating tables nor at the local level, civil society must engage in constant and persistent advocacy and use its boldest voice in every forum.

Ahead of the 156th session of the WHO Executive Board, this series of G2H2 policy debates offers a platform for civil society to remind everyone what are the “matters that matter” to us and why particular attention should be given to them. Spanning from the assessment of “hot” topics to be addressed at the upcoming Executive Board, to a detailed analysis of other burning technical or political matters that have been left out, each session will feature selected speakers which will guide us into an enriching discussion.

Sessions overview

Monday 20 January 2025, 13.00-14.30 CET
Financialization and capital investment in the health sector: the need for some guidance
Session organized by WEMOS
Language: English
Registration link: here

Monday 20 January 2025, 15.00-16.30 CET
Garnering Civil Society and Member States support for a Resolution on the Regulation of digital marketing of baby feeding products
Session organized by International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)
Language: English
Registration link: here

Tuesday 21 January 2025, 13.00-14-30 CET
Ensuring the Right to Health through evidence-based public health approach to substance use challenges
Session organized by DIANOVA
Languages: English, Spanish
Registration link: here

Tuesday 21 January 2025, 15.00 -16.30 CET
Challenging the idea of “substandard and falsified medical products”: what role for WHO in facilitating geographically diversified medical manufacturing?
Session organized by People’s Health Movement (PHM)
Language: English
Registration link: here

Wednesday 22 January 2025, 15.00-16.30 CET
Taking actions against glyphosate to fight the AMR pandemic
Session organized by Society for International Development (SID)
Language: English
Registration link: here

Thursday 23 January 2025, 13.00-14.30 CET
Energy transition and health rights
Session organized by Society for International Development (SID)
Language: English
Registration link: here

Thursday 23 January 2025, 15.00-16.30 CET
UHC is incomplete and inequitable without access to palliative care
Session organized by International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (IAHPC)
Language: English
Registration link: here

Friday 24 January 2025, 13.00-14.30 CET
Civil society engagement in the development of WHA resolutions and decisions
Session organized by Medicus Mundi International Network Health for All (MMI), World Vision International, Women in Global Health, European Public Health Alliance in cooperation with the WHO Civil Society Commission
Language: English
Registration link: here

Friday 24 January 2025, 15.00-16.30 CET
Civil Society assessments around the WHO Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel
Session organized by Medicus Mundi International Network Health for All (MMI) with the support of PSI and WEMOS
Language: English
Registration link: here

Session details

Monday 20 January 2025, 13.00-14.30 CET
Financialization and capital investment in the health sector: the need for some guidance

Registration link: here

To make up for budget constraints that limit investment in healthcare, policies that bring in private investment in the health sector have become part of the mainstream narrative of governments and development finance institutions. Despite this growing interest, such policies kept underdelivering. Public-Private Partnerships are more expensive than traditional public provision, require additional administrative and bureaucratic work, and risk burdening governments with escalating costs due to contract renegotiations. Moreover, blended finance – i.e., the practice of bringing in private finance by “de-risking” investment –is largely unsuccessful in social sectors like health and education, since they often bring in very little additional investments while requiring significant administrative work.

Many civil society organizations pointed out these issues for years. They also pointed out how the push for private investment in healthcare provision presents significant concerns, such as health inequality, disparity in access to healthcare, high cost of care for patients and governments, among others.

On the other hand, the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of local production of medical products (equipment, medicines and vaccines). In this sector, private companies play a significant role, and private investment could make a difference – albeit with the appropriate safeguards for universal accessibility.

While there is plenty of literature and data on this topic, there is no normative guidance to clarify where private investment can contribute to the development of universal and equitable healthcare systems, and where it cannot (or even be counterproductive). The WHO has in the past produced guidance – the Health Financing Progress Matrix – which shed light on the best practices regarding healthcare financing; however, such guidance focused on recurrent financing, leaving out the role of private investment. The WHO could play an important role in filling this gap in guidance and clarify in which cases additional private investment is desirable (for example, supply of medical equipment medicines, and vaccines), and when public investment should instead be prioritized.

The session brings together representatives from civil society organizations, WHO staff and health researchers to discuss concerns about financialization of healthcare and the need to make some clarity in this highly contested field.

References
More about this session

Monday 20 January 2025, 15.00-16.30 CET
Garnering civil society and Member States support for a resolution on the regulation of digital marketing of baby feeding products

Registration link: here

Digital marketing is fast becoming the predominant source of exposure to promotion of baby feeding products globally. In 2022, WHO’s report on digital marketing of breast-milk substitutes  described its cross border extent and power. It is now totally out of control and parents and carers everywhere are targeted by paid  ‘influencers’ and other deceptive schemes with information that undermines WHO and national health recommendations and disempowers parents. The Guidance on regulatory measures aimed at restricting digital marketing of breastmilk substitutes published in November 2023, followed WHO’s usual strict procedures and a comprehensive review of evidence that was provided to the 75th WHA in 2022. 65 Member States and Civil Society Organisations responded to an open public consultation that took place in September 2023.

IBFAN hoped to have this Resolution adopted in 2024 –  the reporting year on Maternal Infant and Young Child Nutrition – but although Laos tabled a draft Resolution in time – political interference and confusion prevented it going forward,  despite good support at EB154 .   There was renewed support at  WHA 77  and we now trying again.  Brazil – supported by  Armenia, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Sri-Lanka did table a  zero draft Resolution Regulating the digital marketing of breast-milk substitutes by the 1st November deadline  in and several other countries are now co-sponsoring – Slovakia, Norway and Chile.

Reference

IBFAN’s blog: here

More about this session

Tuesday 21 January 2025, 13.00-14-30 CET
Ensuring the Right to Health through evidence-based public health approach to substance use challenges

Registration link: here

The session aims to address the complex dimensions of substance-use challenges, aligning public health responses with the universal right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

The event will focus on advancing a public health approach to substance use, rooted in scientific evidence and human rights principles. The dialogue seeks to foster the design and implementation of policies that guarantee equitable continuum of care and support, from universal prevention to harm reduction and recovery.

The core objectives of the session are:

  • Upholding the Right to Health: Promoting its integration into substance-use-related laws and policies to ensure access to care for all.
  • Encouraging Evidence-Based Policies: Demonstrating the power of science-driven interventions for sustainable and humane solutions.
  • Strengthening Integrated Care Systems: Sharing best practices for creating a continuum of care addressing prevention, harm reduction, and treatment.

This proposal highlights the intersection of substance-use challenges with health equity, social justice, and sustainable development. By centering the right to health in drug policies, we aim to reduce stigma and improve health.

More about the session

Tuesday 21 January 2025, 15.00-16.30 CET
Challenging the idea of “substandard and falsified medical products”: what role for WHO in facilitating geographically diversified medical manufacturing?

Registration link: here

This session will focus on historicizing debates around “Agenda Item 9: Substandard and falsified medical products” (which is due to be discussed at EB156). It will provide a brief overview of the emergence of the WHO’s preoccupation with the idea of substandard and falsified medical products and locate this idea in relation to the resistance to the rise of generics manufacturers in the 1990s. It also seeks to provide a critical analysis of this debate in the contemporary moment: why is this terminology still being used in WHO documentation? How might it complicate ambitions for creating more geographically diversified medical manufacturing capabilities being advocated for in the Pandemic Accord process and elsewhere? Finally, how could the WHO’s work on the “economics of health for all” be used to change the terms of debates on medical manufacturing by shifting the focus from originator vs. generic vs. “falsified” products to a focus on public ownership of the medical manufacturing pipeline? The session will take a webinar format with key resource people providing 10–15-minute inputs, followed by a question-and-answer session/discussion.

More about this session

Wednesday 22 January 2025, 15.00-16.30 CET
Taking actions against glyphosate to fight the AMR pandemic

Registration link: here

At the end of 2023, the European Commission decided to greenlight 10 more years of glyphosate use, the most heavily EC decision turns into a disaster for health, biodiversity, soil and water, as proven by several independent scientific studies. The toxic deliberation to extend glyphosate authorization clashes against the 2015 IARC/WHO statement about the “convincing evidence” that glyphosate can cause cancer in laboratory animals, and that the substance is “probably carcinogenic”. It is also a violation of the EU Pesticide Law, which imposes the adoption of the precautionary principle in case of scientific doubts.  The Pesticide Action Network (PAN Europe) took formal procedural steps for a  review of the EC decision in January 2024, but these were rejected, and that is why the network has decided on 11th December 2024 to fight this decision at the EU Court of Justice.

Glyphosate is the top selling herbicide and the flagship of chemical agriculture. Already Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, has had to settle 100,000 Roundup cancer lawsuits in past years, paying out as much as USD 11 billions to cancer survivors (as of May 2022), and 30,000 more are pending. The PAN litigation will be a tough court case, the stakes are high. Bayer Monsanto and other producers might join the side of the European Commission in this court case. They have done this before. This means that PAN lawyers will have to face a battery of well prepared and extremely corporate well-funded opponents.

The EC decision bypassed recent scientific evidence, favouring a new round of hazards on human health. Moreover, the role of glyphosate in the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has scientifically come to the fore. Despite AMR being a silent pandemic increasingly profiled in the global health agenda, there remains a dramatically low number of publications linking glyphosate use and the rise of AMR. The herbicide was registered as an antibiotic in the USA in 2003, and in Europe in 2014. The relevance of the PAN court case needs to be examined in this scenario and in the context of what countries like Mexico have been doing to phase out of glyphosate to limit AMR spread.

SID webinar intends to shine a light on this case, in the context of the WHO debates on the pandemic treaty, One Health and the fight against AMR, taking stock of the research work conducted in this area in past years.

More about this session

Thursday 23 January 2025, 13.00-14.30 CET
Energy transition and health rights

Registration link: here

The centrality of energy to achieving development has been incapsulated within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 7: “ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all”). However, as we move closer to 2030, it is increasingly evident that the goal will not be achieved, and in fact the gaps, far from reducing, are on the rise.  The inability to access energy is a global issue that affects approximately 30% of the world’s population. There is no universally accepted definition of energy poverty. Across higher income countries, most measures encompass a situation in which a person cannot obtain the necessary energy to keep their home at a comfortable temperature and meet their basic needs because of inadequate resources or living conditions which is measured either subjectively or objectively. The prevalence is higher in cooler European countries with a poor housing stock such as the UK,  where approximately 10.3% of households are in energy poverty. However, the problem is not limited to colder countries. Fuel poverty also refers to a situation where individuals cannot afford to cool their home or have a properly cooked meal. Several studies have shown how energy poverty increases morbidity and mortality, a growing problem worldwide.

Energy justice has been defined as the goal of seeking equity in the social and economic participation in the energy system, while at the same time addressing the economic, social and health costs that are borne by those communities or groups that the energy system has traditionally harmed. With our 20st century energy sources and structures, which prove so damaging to people’s and planetary health, can we rapidly build and deploy energy systems that can respect human rights and restore planetary systems? Caring for health within the energy policies should serve as a basis to ensure a just and a climate-friendly development around the world. In fact the two notions – health and energy – are integrated. Equal access to health can only exists through improving  the sharing of energy production and drastically optimizing its consumption globally. Neither the planet nor humankind can sustain  polluting energy production because of how much it harms people, creating inequalities of life and development.

SID webinar intends to shine a light on some of the neglected areas of engagement to address the conditions needed to ensure that the mooted energy transition be sustainable and equitable, and also to display the human health costs of failure to do so. The quest of energy justice should not be written off as just another liberal entitlement being sought.

More about this session

Thursday 23 January 2025, 15.00-16.30 CET
UHC is incomplete and inequitable without access to palliative care

Registration link: here

Palliative care is the active holistic care of individuals across all ages with serious health-related suffering due to severe illness, and especially of those near the end of life. It aims to improve the quality of life of patients, their families and their caregivers, the latter being mostly women and girls. Palliative care is an essential component of Universal Health Coverage and is listed as one of the essential services of primary health care and in humanitarian emergencies. Yet, according to WHO, only 14% of persons in the world who need palliative care can access it. Even fewer have access to essential palliative care medicines such as morphine.

The number of people dying of cancer will almost double by 2050 globally, with the largest increases in low-income countries. The disparity in serious health-related suffering experienced by people with cancer in low-income countries compared to high-income countries is stark. According to Sleeman et al, almost 8 million people globally who died due to cancer in 2016 experienced serious health-related suffering. By 2060, this number will double and in low-income countries is projected to increase by 400%. As populations age, most people dying with cancer and experiencing serious health-related suffering will be over 70 years old. Furthermore, the number of people living with dementia is projected to increase globally from 57 million cases in 2019 to 153 million cases in 2050. This global increase of 166%, is disproportionately shouldered by low- and low-middle-income countries (330% and 239% respectively), where palliative care is least available.

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) aims to ensure that all individuals and communities have access to the health services they require without suffering financial hardship. Member States will never achieve UHC and meet Target 8 of SDG 3 until everyone who needs palliative care can access it. The palliative care needs of most people can be met at the generalist level, mostly in Primary Health Care (PHC). To be genuinely universal and comprehensive, UHC based on PHC must integrate equitable access to palliative care. Strengthening health systems by including palliative care in UHC frameworks is both a moral imperative and a cost-effective strategy that supports health equity and aligns with global health goals.

Civil society palliative practitioners and advocates will present their advocacy work to achieve equitable primary care-based universal health coverage. By the end of the policy dialogue, participants will:

  • Understand why palliative care practitioners advocate for integrating palliative care into primary care based UHC for patients, communities, and health systems.
  • Articulate the ethical and moral imperatives of providing equitable access to palliative care in the broader global health narrative.
  • Argue the business case for integrating primary palliative care into health systems under UHC.
  • Appraise the inclusion of palliative care in their particular and joint institutional advocacy, including for mental health, workforce development, community engagement, emergencies and access to medicines.
References
  1. Munday D, Pastrana T, Murray SA. Defining and developing primary palliative care as an essential element of primary health care. Palliative Medicine. 2024;38(8):766-769. doi:10.1177/02692163241270915. Available here
  2. Abu-Odah, Hammoda, et al. “Oncology nurses’ lived experience of caring for patients with advanced cancer in healthcare systems without palliative care services.”International Journal of Palliative Nursing 7 (2024): 370-378. Available here
  3. Namisango, E., & Pettus, K. (2024). Analysis of opioid analgesic consumption in Africa.The Lancet Global Health, 12(7), e1075-e1076. Available here
  4. Pettus, K. (2024). Structural imperialism and the pandemic of untreated pain in the Asia Region. Journal of Illicit Economies and Development, 5(2), 92-100. Available here.
More about this session
  • Language: English
  • Session organized by IAHPC
  • Contact: Sherin Paul
  • Bio of speakers and panelist: here

Friday 24 January 2025, 13.00-14.30 CET
Civil society engagement in the development of WHA resolutions and decisions

Registration link: here

A first study published by the WHO Civil Society Commission evaluates the involvement of civil society in drafting some key resolutions and decisions adopted by the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA77) in May 2024. The study covers civil society interactions with the WHO Secretariat and Member States related to the drafting of the WHA77 Resolution on Social Participation, the WHO Fourteenth General Programme of Work, and the WHA Resolution on Climate Change and Health. For each of these three cases, the study provides detailed background information as well as assessments by key actors: what is the “real” story behind the interaction between WHO Secretariat or Member States and civil society organizations, what have been key challenges on the way, and how can the story inspire others to do the same. Each case concludes with the study team’s assessments of lessons learnt and recommendations to all actors involved.

The experiences and lessons from the three case studies provide a solid foundation for advancing meaningful and comprehensive civil society engagement in global health decision-making. By embracing these lessons, WHO and civil society can strengthen their commitment to participatory governance, making health policies more responsive, equitable, and effective. The study is presented and launched by the civil society team in the lead, involving representatives of the WHO Secretariat and Member States.

Programme
  • Welcome
  • Introduction by the study team: The study and the three cases featured (Social Participation Resolution, Climate and Health Resolution, GPW14)
  • Bar talks with study team and representatives from WHO Member States and Secretariat and civil society: Particularly remarkable elements of the intensive interactions between WHO (Member States and Secretariat) and civil society in the making of the three WHA77 documents
  • Discussion with all panelists and audence: Feedback and questions
References
  • Civil society engagement in the development of World Health Assembly resolutions and decisions. Lessons and examples from the Seventy-seventh session”
    The Study will be published by the World Health Organization in January 2025.
  • Presentation of the study outline, May 2024: here
  • WHO Civil Society Commission Working Group on “Promoting good practice in WHO civil society consultations”: Terms of Reference
More about this session

Friday 24 January 2025, 15.00-16.30 CET
Civil Society assessments around the WHO Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel


Registration link: here

The WHO Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel, which came into force in 2010, provides a regulatory framework, albeit a weak one, to prevent countries from poaching each other’s health workers. The implementation of the code is currently being reviewed by an Expert Advisory Group.

At the event, we will look at ways in which the code can be strengthened from a civil society perspective. We will reflect on the current situation and consider strategic options.

  • How can the wave of active recruitment be effectively addressed /stopped and high-income countries be discouraged from active recruitment?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of bilateral labour agreements?
  • How can the rights of health workers be strengthened in bilateral and multilateral migration agreements?
  • What are the main barriers for the poor compliance with the WHO Code especially in countries worst affected by health workforce shortage?
  • What do you think are the gaps that need to be addressed in order to strengthen the implementation of the WHO Code? How do we address them?
More about this session

A few weeks before the 156th Session of the WHO Executive Board, a series of public briefings and policy debates organized by the Geneva Global Health Hub (G2H2) and its members aims to provide spaces for sharing, assessing and debating health policy and governance challenges within and beyond the items covered by the formal agenda of WHO EB, bridging from health policies to people’s realities, addressing determinants of health and promoting democratic governance.

For general enquiries, please get in touch with the G2H2 secretariat.

Thank you!