Reports Search

WHO’s Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of NCDs was first presented in A53/14 in May 2000 and was endorsed in resolution A53.17.  

In May 2008 the Assembly (in A61.14) endorsed the Action Plan for the Global Strategy (for 2008 - 2013).  Progress in implementation was reported to WHA63 in 2010 in A63/12. 

The first UN HLM on NCDs was held in September 2011 and adopted the Political Declaration on NCDs.  This declaration called upon WHO to develop a comprehensive global monitoring framework and a set of voluntary global targets.  

Since 1994 (and the coming into force of the TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement) there has been a dramatic strengthening of intellectual property (IP) protection with protection for product as well as process, increasing duration of protection and powerful new sanctions to encourage countries to adopt the new standards. (Scherer and Watal (2001) point out that many of today’s developed countries excluded pharmaceutical products from patent protection until quite recently: Germany until 1968; Switzerland until 1977; Italy until 1978; Spain until 1992; Portugal until 1992; Norway until 1992; Finland until 1995, and Iceland until 1997.)

Proponents for increasing IP protection, in particular the research based pharmaceutical manufacturers (RBPM) and their nation-state proxies, argue that it is necessary to support innovation.

Opponents to high levels of IP protection argue that:

For the first time, a World Health Organization committee has recommended the global agency form a working group to explore policies for contending with the high prices of medicines that are considered essential, but unaffordable in many low and middle-income countries.

The suggestion was made in the latest report about treatments to be added to the WHO list of essential medicines. The list, which is updated every two years, contains the most effective, safe and cost‐effective drugs for treating high-priority illnesses and running a functioning health care system. For this reason, the list is influential because many countries consult the list for determining reimbursement.

On October 1, 2021, the WHO published the new edition of its Model Lists (the EML) of Essential Medicines and Essential Medicines for Children.

The 22nd Model EML includes “new treatments for various cancers, insulin analogues and new oral medicines for diabetes, new medicines to assist people who want to stop smoking, and new antimicrobials to treat serious bacterial and fungal infections.”

Potentially more consequential, the WHO Report “recommended establishing a standing EML Working Group to support the Expert Committee to provide advice to WHO on policies and rules to make highly priced essential medicines more affordable and accessible.”

While the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in huge setbacks for health systems – it has also highlighted the needs. And one of the biggest is the need for greater investment in basic primary health care systems as a pathway for ensuring  Universal Health Coverage (UHC).

Delegates speaking during a high-level strategic session on the third day of the 74th World Health Assembly, Wednesday, said that while there has been progress in some areas of primary health care, stronger policies, more public-private partnerships and more socially inclusive participation is needed.

We are writing regarding World Health Organisation’s Strategy Report: “Engaging the private health service delivery sector through governance in mixed health systems”. We write on behalf of a group of undersigned organisations working on public health and human rights. We appreciate the engagement that we have had to date with Mr David Clarke and his team to clarify the content and nature of the report. We welcome the team’s openness to collaborate with civil society in the next steps regarding the operationalisation of the Strategy Report. As public health and human rights organisations working to ensure equitable, universal access to healthcare, we do however have several concerns with the content of the Strategy Report itself. In the attachment we have detailed our concerns for your consideration. We have summarised some of the key points below.

In 2015 the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations stipulated that certain forms of subsidies that the fishing sector receive must be prohibited. However, the global fishing sector is complex and varied, and as such there remains a need for information on the distribution of subsidies between the different regions and their sub-sectors. This bottom-up study therefore provides up-dated and improved analyses of the financial support fishing sub-sectors receive from public entities. Estimates show that of the USD 35.4 billion of global fisheries subsidies provided in 2018, 19% went to the small-scale fishing sub-sector (SSF), including artisanal, and subsistence fisheries. Whilst more than 80% went to the large-scale (industrial) fishing sub-sector (LSF). Analysis by subsidy category and type shows, for example, that the majority of the subsidies that the LSF receive are in the form of capacity-enhancing subsidies (USD 18.3 billion) with fuel subsidies being the highest overall subsidy type (USD 7.2 billion). Fuel subsidies are especially harmful as they perpetuate fuel inefficient technology.

Third World Network is pleased to announce the release of an important new report on how the trade rules being proposed in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other free trade agreements would impede the ability of governments from the Global South to tax the digitalised economy.

The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize partnership to attain health related goals and Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Although World Health Organization (WHO)’s Member States have adopted the SDG agenda, they will not be able to achieve these goals through public sector service delivery alone. The private health sector has evolved to be a prominent provider of health service delivery across regions and different wealth quintiles. Innovations are thriving in the private health sector and call for a new approach to governing health systems so as to ensure that both the public and private sector can contribute.

The WHO’s Expert Committee on Biological Standardisation (ECBS) has declined a request to revise its 2009 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Similar Biotherapeutic Products (WHO Guidelines), which set the requirements for the generic version of biotherapeutics known as “biosimilars”.

The WHO Secretariat then decided to evaluate the scientific evidence to support the revision of WHO Guidelines. The procedural holes in the ECBS decision might be the reason behind WHO’s decision to review the scientific evidence.

During its 70th meeting on 21-25 October 2019 the ECBS – which includes a panel of experts with proficiency in developing norms and standards related to vaccines, blood products, and biotherapeutics – considered a request initiated by a group of scientists and civil society organisations (CSO) to revise the WHO Guidelines on biosimilars.