16-20 May 2022: People’s realities, determinants of health, democratic governance: Connecting dots outside the doors of the World Health Assembly
Series of G2H2 hosted public policy debates in the week before the opening of the 75th World Health Assembly
At the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA75) scheduled for 22-28 May 2022, the size of delegations allowed to attend the the deliberations in-person at the Palais des Nations will be strictly limited. This awkward setup is explained by the Secretariat of the World Health Organization with capacity issues (delayed renovation of the Palais des Nations), and it has found its way into the title of the May 2022 series of policy debates hosted by the Geneva Global Health Hub: “People’s realities, determinants of health, democratic governance: Connecting dots outside the doors of the World Health Assembly”. Outside the doors of the World Health Assembly – this is indeed where most of us will be…
Programme
Monday, 16 May 2022, 13.00-14.30 CEST
Realizing equity in health emergencies: The way forward
Session organizer: Third World Network
Monday, 16 May 2022, 15.00-16.30 CEST
“Can we speak with the Secretariat of the World Health Assembly, please?”
New perspectives for civil society interaction with WHO
Session organizers: PHM ESA and partners
Wednesday 18 May 2022, 13.00-14.30 CEST
The public health dimension of the world drug problem:
Promoting evidence-based health responses to drugs
Session organizers: Dianova and partners
Wednesday 18 May 2022, 15.00-16.30 CEST
Antimicrobial Resistance: The dystopia of an unsustainable development model
Session organizers: Society for International Development and AMR Think-Do-Tank
Thursday 19 May 2022, 13.00-14.30 CEST
A “tobacco law” for the fossil fuel industry
Session organizers: Medicus Mundi International Network and partners
Thursday 19 May 2022, 15.00-16.30 CEST
Making the One Health approach socially sensitive
Session organizer: Third World Network
Friday 20 May 2022, 13.00-14.30 CEST
Undermining democratic and multilateral responses: Multistakeholderism in global health governance
Session organizers: People’s Health Movement and partners
- Session details, documentations, recordings, and contacts: below
- Twitter: #WHA75 #outsidethedoors

Session documentations and recordings
Monday, 16 May 2022, 13.00-14.30 CEST
Realizing equity in health emergencies: The way forward
One of the significant questions which arose during the meetings of the WHO Working Group on Pandemic Preparedness and Response (WGPR) is about the operational definition of equity in the health emergency preparedness and response. Developing Countries asserted that concerns of equity should be addressed both through the amendments of the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the proposed new legal instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, meaning there should be legally binding obligations on equity. Nevertheless, it has been noted that there is not much improvement in this effort, except for aspirational quotes on equity as a principle and outcome. On the operational front, selective silence is maintained.
The policy dialogue shall discuss how to translate the need for equity into concrete legally binding commitments. It also aims to comprehensively look at the IHR amendment proposals and the inputs on substantive elements for the new pandemic instrument, such that the net is cast wide by strategizing equity goals in both IHR amendments and in the new instrument. The session aims to explore why the current health emergency regime is not equitable, why the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities is important in the health emergency regime, and how to translate equity into deliverable, legally binding commitments.
Speakers/panel
- Matiangai Sirleaf, Nathan Patz Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law
- Adam Kamradt-Scott, Professor, School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute
- Sangeeta Shashikant, Legal Advisor, Third World Network
- Iddrisu Yakubu, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Ghana in Geneva
- Moderator: Nicoletta Dentico, Health Justice Programme, Society for International Development (SID)
Session documentation
- Session recording: Zoom cloud
- Input Adam Kamradt-Scott: Monday – Adam Kamradt-Scott
Key references and resources
- Responsibility for Epidemics
Paper by Matiangai Sirleaf (2018) - Mainstreaming Equity in the International Health Regulations and Future WHO Legal Instruments on Pandemic Preparedness and Response
South Centre brief by Nirmalya Shyam (2022) - A/HRC/47/31: International solidarity in aid of the realization of human rights during and after the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic Report of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity
Report by Obiora C. Okafor (2021) - Zero draft report of the Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies to the Seventy fifth World Health Assembly
Still under negotiations (May 2022) - WHO Dashboard on Covid19 Related Recommendations
Collection of Recommendations for Reforming Health Emergencies from Various Sources
More about this session
- Session organized by: Third World Network
- Contact for enquiries: Nithin Ramakrishnan, directornithin@gmail.com

Monday, 16 May 2022, 15.00-16.30 CEST
“Can we speak with the Secretariat of the World Health Assembly, please?”: New perspectives for civil society interaction with WHO
We have often, and for good reasons, raised the issue of a shrinking civic space and difficult working conditions for civil society in its interaction with the World Health Organization and in particular the WHO governing body meetings. But not everything is hopeless, and it makes sense to distinguish between the indeed often difficult processes and fora in which WHO member states are in the lead versus a perhaps more open disposition towards civil society by the WHO Secretariat and its Director-General.
To further improve WHO-civil society relations, the project of a WHO – Civil Society Commission was proposed by civil society networks and organizations to the WHO Secretariat in 2020, and found the interest of the Director-General. After quite some effort, the Commission is expected to be launched in 2022 – but the form, scope and even credibility of such a Commission remain contested.
In this session, G2H2 members and partners engaged in the promotion of the WHO Civil Society Commission provide an overview of the history of this current initiative and what civil society may expect from the Commission. The policy dialogue will also outline potential pitfalls, traps, competing interests and open questions, based on past experiences and some particular challenges related to WHO governance. Will the Commission be a breakthrough towards more meaningful civil society engagement with the WHO Secretariat, or will it follow the path of other failed initiatives?
Session outline
- Introductions and overview
- The WHO Civil Society Commission project: What is it, and where are we with it
Lucile Hermant, Action Contre la Faim (ACF) - Positioning the WHO CS Commission project in the broader field of WHO governance
Thomas Schwarz, Medicus Mundi International – Network Health for All (MMI) - Presentation of the WHO Youth Council: Lessons from a parallel initiative
Iris Blom, International Federation of Medical Students Associations (IFMSA) - Discussants from WHO Secretariat, represented by Gaudenz Silberschmidt, Director, and Taina Nakari, External Relations Officer, Health and Multilateral Partnerships
- Plenary discussion
- Closing: what’s next for the Commission project and how to engage further.
- Session moderation: Ravi Ram, People’s Health Movement
Session documentation
- Session recording: Zoom cloud
- Input Lucille Hermant: Monday – Lucille Hermant
- Input Thomas Schwarz: Monday – Thomas Schwarz
- Input Iris Blom: Monday – Iris Blom
Further references/resources: The Commission proposal
- The proposal of a WHO Civil Society Commission
Updated overview presentation, May 2022 - Positioning the WHO-CS Commission project in the broader field of WHO governance
Draft presentation by Thomas Schwarz, May 2022 - Proposed outline of a WHO Civil Society Commission
Submitted to the WHO Secretariat in January 2021
- Contact: Google group of informal civil society interest group
concerned with the proposed WHO-Civil Society Commission
References/resources: Context
- Towards a more meaningful engagement of WHO with civil society
A civil society assessment of proposals on „WHO governance reform processes: Involvement of non-State actors“(2019) - The Great Takeover: Mapping of Multistakeholderism in Global Governance
Report by People’s Working Group on Multistakeholderism, 2022 - WHO launches youth council to advise on global health and development issues affecting young people
WHO news story, 2020
More about this session
- Session organized by: People’s Health Movement (E&S Africa), Action Contre la Faim (ACF), Save the Children International, Medicus Mundi International Network, COPASAH, and AfroPHC
- Contact for enquiries: Ravi Ram, PHM, phm.esafrica@phmovement.org

Wednesday 18 May 2022, 13.00-14.30 CEST
The public health dimension of the world drug problem: Promoting evidence-based health responses to drugs
The world drug problem has multiple public health dimensions that touch upon prevention, treatment, and care of people with drug use and drug dependence, reduction of harm associated with drug use and access to controlled medicines for pain relief. In addition to the public health dimension, there is also a human rights dimension to drug policy.
WHO has a key role in addressing and promoting the public health and human rights dimension of global issues related to drugs. The World Health Assembly has been periodically reporting on the public health dimension of the world drug problem since 2017 and will accomplish its last planned reporting in WHA 75, to be held between 22 – 28 May 2022.
This policy dialogue aims to raise awareness on the public health dimension of the world drug problem and to highlight the importance of WHO continuous work and monitoring in this field.
Programme/speakers
- Vladimir Poznyak, Unit Head of Alcohol, Drugs and Addictive Behaviours, World Health Organization (WHO)
- Access to medicines: Smriti Rana, Pallium, Head Strategic Programs and Partnerships, International Association of Hospice and Palliative Care
- Prevention: Kristina Sperkova, President, Movendi International
- Treatment, Recovery and Social Reintegration: Gisela Hansen, Director, Dianova Spain
- Harm Reduction: Colleen Daniels, Deputy Director and Public Health Lead, Harm Reduction International
- Moderation: Lucia Goberna, Institutional Relations, Dianova International
Session documentation
- Session recording: Zoom cloud
- Input Vladimir Poznyak: Wednesday – Vladimir Poznyak
- Input Smriti Rana: Wednesday – Smriti Rana
- Input Gisela Hansen: Wednesday – Gisela Hansen
- Input Colleen Daniels: Wednesday – Colleen Daniels
References/resources
- Public health dimension of the world drug problem.
World Health Organization 2022. WHA document A75/43 - The public health dimension of the world drug problem: how WHO works to prevent drug misuse, reduce harm and improve safe access to medicine”
World Health Organization 2019 - The Public Health Dimension of the World Drug Problem
World Health Organization 2017. WHA document A70/18
More about this session
- Session organized by: Dianova International, International Association of Hospice and Palliative Care, Harm Reduction International and Movendi International
- Contact for enquiries: Lucía Goberna, Dianova International, lucia.goberna@dianova.org
- Language: English only, no interpretation
- Social media card: see below – “Save the date” flyer: here

Wednesday 18 May 2022, 15.00-16.30 CEST
Antimicrobial Resistance: The dystopia of an unsustainable development model
In March 2022, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) was invited to join the Tripartite Group embracing WHO-FAO-OIE in the struggle against Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). Why? Because, basically, most antimicrobial resistant bacteria take their origins from the environment – water, soil, air – as 80% of antibiotics are used in industrial meat and fish farms, mostly for preventing animals’ diseases while they are in horrible breeding conditions and for fattening animals faster. Antibiotics are routinely spread on fruits, and glyphosate – which was registered in 2014 as an antibiotic – is massively spread on fields devoted to industrial agriculture.
Antimicrobial Resistance occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites no longer respond to medicines making infections harder to treat and increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness and death: the WHO calculates that around 700,000 people die of drug-resistant infections every year. Scientists working in this field calculate between 10 and 20 million excess deaths per year, in all ages; and a very high neonatal mortality in India.
It is a fact that most conversations on AMR are blaming the individual patient or doctor for mishandling of antibiotics, and solutions are sought through the restricted R&D-and-access-approach adopted for past infectious diseases, reductions in FDA requirements, including the need for new incentives to the pharmaceutical companies to engage in R&D. This interpretative model does not correspond to the systemic nature of this health crisis. AMR comes from the environment and the food chain: one’s vegetables, tomatoes, and meat (chicken, pork, fish), when over 55% of the world lacks wastewater treatment and clean water systems. At a time of climate change, with flooding, cyclones, and many other extreme weather events increasing in frequency and intensity, the environment must come first when we deal with AMR control.
Speakers/panelists
- Garance Upham, President, AMR Think-Do-Tank, Geneva international.
- Professor John Poté, PhD, Head of Environmental Microbiology Group, UNIGE, Geneva
- Dr Jane Kengeya-Kayondo, MD, former TDR-WHO Implementation Research & former Advisor Wellcome Trust Africa
- Cassandra L. Quave, PhD. Ethnobotanist, Associate Professor, Dept of Dermatology, Emory University, USA
- Cecilia Elizondo, Grupo Académico de Agroecología, Ecosur, Mexico
- Session moderator: Nicoletta Dentico, Health Justice Programme, Society for International Development and co-chair Geneva Global Health Hub
Session documentation
- Session recording: Zoom cloud
- Input John Poté: Wednesday – John Pote-Wembonyama
- Input Jane Kengeya-Kayondo: Wednesday – Jane Kengeya-Kayondo
- Input Cassandra L. Quave: Wednesday – Cassandra Leah Quave
- Input Cecilia Elizondo: Wednesday – Cecilia Elizondo
Key resources/references
- Antimicrobial resistance
WHO website - The Global Threat of AMR
Website of AMR Think-Do-Tank - The Global Threat of Antimicrobial Resistance and the Challenges and Needs of Developing Countries
South Centre, 2018 - How Civil Society Action can Contribute to Combating Antimicrobial Resistance
Mirza Alas, South Centre, 2020 - AMR & the Environment: A global & One Health Security Issue
AMR Think-Do-Tank - Antibiotic resistance in the environment
Larsson, D.G.J., Flach, CF. Nature, 2021 - Antibiotic Resistance: One Health One World Outlook
Bilal Aslam, Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol., 2021 - Advancing Global Response to Antimicrobial Resistance: Examining Current Global Initiatives
Mirza Alas, South Centre, 2022
More about this session
- Session organized by: Society for International Development (SID) and AMR Think-Do-Tank
- Contact for enquiries: Nicoletta Dentico (SID), ndentico@sidint.org, and Garance Upham (AMR Think-Do-Tank), garance.upham@gmail.com
- Language/interpretation: the session will be available in English, Spanish and French
- Social media card: See below

Thursday 19 May 2022, 13.00-14.30 CEST
A “tobacco law” for the fossil fuel industry
Damage to planetary health and human health is fueled by advertisements that promote polluting companies and tempt citizens into polluting lifestyle choices. Like tobacco, air pollution by the fossil fuel industry is killing millions of people yearly (WHO). The fossil fuel industry uses a similar playbook as the tobacco industry. Yet, there is no regulation for the fossil fuel industry that prevents advertising, sponsoring, and marketing of their products and services.
The Framework Convention for Tobacco Control by the WHO (FCTC) has been effective in reducing the power of the tobacco industry and the daily temptations for (new) smokers. A similar Convention for the fossil fuel industry will stop the promotion, misleading messages and lobby by polluting companies and will shift norms and values in society. Subsequently, it will lower emissions of GHGs and other pollution and create a social tipping point needed to keep global warming well below 1,5°C. Similar to a ban on tobacco, a ban on fossil ads will yield enormous health improvements worldwide.
This policy dialogue provides a space for discussion and brainstorm about the possibilities for a global law or regulation that prohibits the use of fossil ads. It will provide a scope on if, and how, legislative efforts can be made by the WHO, its member states and relevant health networks to advance a global ban on fossil fuel ads. The session will elicit on pathways, possible international allies and next action points to take this campaign further.
Speakers / panelists
- Ken Henshaw (Executive Director We the People, Nigeria)
- Jessica Beagley (Policy Expert, GHCA, UK) Mark Eccleston-Turner (Global Health Lawyer at King’s College London, UK)
- Omnia el Omrani (resident at Ain Shams University Hospital, representative of the Youth Sounding Board of the European Commission, Commissioner of the Lancet-Chartham House Commission on Post-COVID Planetary Health, Former representative IFMSA Egypt and YOUNGO (UNFCCC))
- Maria Neira (Director Health and Environment Department, WHO)
- Session moderated by Martine Doppen, Campaigner at Reclame Fossielvrij
Session documentation (work in progress)
- Session recording: Zoom cloud
- Input Martine Doppen: Thursday – Martine Doppen
- Input Jessica Beagley: Thursday – Jessica Beagley
Key references and resources
- WHO should declare climate change a public health emergency
Harmer A, Eder B, Gepp S, Leetz A, van de Pas R., BMJ 2020; 368 :m797 doi:10.1136/bmj.m797 - TInvesting in humanity: The BMJ’s divestment campaign
Abbasi K, Godlee F., BMJ 2020; 368 :m167 doi:10.1136/bmj.m167 - Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels.
Shindell, D., Smith, C.J., Nature 573, 408–411 (2019) - Doctors’ group wants educational materials from fossil fuel companies kept out of classrooms.
CBC news, March 2022 - Ads for cars and flights could cause twice as much CO2 as Spain
Greenpeace European Unit, 2022 - Fast Facts on Climate Change and Health
WHO factsheet
More about this session
- Session organized by: Medicus Mundi International Network, Zorg Voor Klimaat, Reclame Fossielvrij, Klimawandel und Gesundheit
- Contact for enquiries: Winne van Woerden winne.van.woerden@hotmail.com and Martine Doppen martine@reclamefossielvrij.nl
- Language: English only, no interpretation

Thursday 19 May 2022, 15.00-16.30 CEST
Making the One Health approach socially sensitive
Ever since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the One Health approach has been mainstreamed to achieve a better health preparedness plan. The One Health approach is about addressing the concerns of endemic zoonotic, neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases, as well as antimicrobial resistance, food safety risks, and environmental health including climate change.
The Quadripartite Alliance of FAO, OIE, WHO, and UNEP has proposed a draft One Health Joint Action Plan (OH JPA) which has been circulated by WHO Secretariat to its Member States for written comments. A One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) was formed to look at the One Health policy at the behest of these organizations and they have adopted an operational definition of the One Health approach. Further in other forums like the Convention on the Biological Diversity, the Quadripartite Alliance representatives are actively working to develop action plans and strategies complimentary to their Joint Action Plan, promoting the OHHLEP definition of the One Health approach.
Nevertheless, this definition has found resistance in the meetings of the Convention on Biological Diversity, with some states questioning its comprehensiveness and legitimacy of the definition. The questions are being raised about whether One Health, its definition, its approach, and pathways, are blind to the developmental divide existing between developed and developing countries, and socio-economic inequities, and, if yes, whether the approach is truly “One” in its spirit and essence.
In this context, the policy debate shall discuss the One Health approach and the Joint Action Plan and seek to explore ways to make the One Health approach socially sensitive, especially to the existing socio-economic inequities and the development divide.
Speakers/panelists
- Syed Abbas, Post-Doctoral Researcher, Institute of Development Studies
- Alexandra Phelan, Assistant Professor, Center for Global Health Science & Security, Georgetown University
- Sergio Arispe Barrientos, National Representative to CBD and UNFCCC, Plurinational State of Bolivia
- Session moderator: K M Gopakumar, Legal Advisor, Third World Network
Session documentation
- Session recording: Zoom cloud
- Input Syed Abbas: Thursday – Syed Abbas
Key references and resources
- Document A75/19: Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies
Strengthening collaboration on One Health - Draft One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022-2026)
WHO, 2022 - One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP)
Website of the Panel - The political economy of One Health research and policy
Paper by Victor Galaz, Melissa Leach, Ian Scoones and Christian Stein (2015) - Meanings and mechanisms of One Health partnerships: insights from a critical review of literature on cross-government collaborationsPaper by Syed Shahid Abbas, Tim Shorten, and Jonathan Rushton (2022)
More about this session
- Session organized by: Third World Network
- Contact for enquiries: Nithin Ramakrishnan, directornithin@gmail.com
- Language/interpretation: English only, no interpretation
- Social media card: see below

Friday 20 May 2022, 13.00-14.30 CEST
Undermining democratic and multilateral responses: Multistakeholderism in global health governance
Although the process of dislocating governments and civil society from determinant global decision-making mechanisms is not new, multistakeholderism, as it has been called, has been rapidly increasing in the last two decades. According to a recent study, “pharmaceutical companies, private philanthropies, the World Bank group and Northern donor governments have far greater influence [in the governance of global health] than the developing countries, multilateral UN institutions and elected governments”.
The decisions made in these multistakeholder mechanisms and in captured multilateral institutions have direct impact on people’s health, children’s education, digital rights, access to basic public services and human rights, including the right to a healthy environment. While many civil society organizations are welcoming multistakeholder arrangements given their closeness to industry, multistakeholderism has been dislocating both legitimate governments and civil society from decision-making tables (Gleckman and Kumar).
This policy debate aims at unpacking multistakeholderism in the health sector, connecting the dots between multistakeholder arrangements and the erosion of civil society’s participation in global health governance. It aims to inform and mobilize organizations and people with an interest in WHO to deliberate on building a stronger democratic multilateral system accountable to the public interest and committed to a sustainable planet.
Programme and speakers
- Launch of the Report “The Great Takeover: Mapping of Multistakeholderism in Global Governance”
- Mr. Madhuresh Kumar, Transnational Institute:
Mapping of Multistakeholder Arrangements in Health - Dr. Fifa Rahman, University of Leeds and Civil Society Representative COVID-19 ACT- Accelerator:
The future of the ACT-Accelerator: four non-negotiable demands by CSOs - Dr. Lauren Paremoer, University of Cape Town and People’s Health Movement:
Building campaigns from the country to the global level against corporate capture of multilateral institutions - Dr David McCoy, United Nations University International Institute for Global Health, Malaysia
Corporate Lobbying on US Positions Toward the World Health Organization
- Call for action and way forward: Open discussion
- Moderator: Dr. Sulakshana Nandi, People’s Health Movement and People’s Working Group on Multistakeholderism
Session documentation (work in progress)
- Session recording in English: Zoom cloud
References/resources
- PHM Global Health Watch 6: In the Shadow of the Pandemic
People’s Health Movement, ALAMES, Health Poverty Action, Medico International, Third World Network, Medact, Sama & Viva Salud (2022).
- The Great Takeover
People’s Working Group on Multistakeholderism, 2021 - COVAX: A global multistakeholder group that poses political and health risks to developing countries and multilateralism
Harris Gleckman (2020) - The three Covid crises and Multistakeholderism. Impacts on the Global South.
Harris Gleckman (book to be published in 2022)
More about this session
- Session organized by: People’s Health Movement PHM, Transnational Institute TNI, People’s Working Group on Multistakeholderism PWGM
- Contact for enquiries: Sulakshana Nandi, PHM, sulakshana@phmovement.org, and Juliana Rodrigues de Senna, TNI, j.senna@tni.org
- Languages/interpretation: English / Spanish


Public policy debates hosted by the Geneva Global Health Hub (G2H2) and set up as Zoom webinars. For general enquiries, please get in touch with the G2H2 secretariat. Thank you!