Gates' billions for you-no strings attached?

[Guest guest]

Gates' billions for you-no strings attached?

Rema Nagarajan, 09 July 2010, 09:57 PM IST

Last week, an article on Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation becoming one of the

biggest donors for the World Health Organisation (WHO) had many exclaiming how

wonderful a man Gates is to give away so much money. Indeed, Gates must be the

biggest philanthropist of all times.

Yet, there in unease in the health sector across the world about one person or

his foundation setting the global agenda on health.

The WHO is expected to be an international health agency that would set global

public health priorities, provide uncompromised technical expertise and fortify

the international community's ability to confront global health risks.

But with more and more of its operational budget dependent on donors, the danger

of WHO becoming an instrument to serve donor interests is a huge concern.

Ruth Levine, a health economist, put it quite succintly in an open letter

published in British Medical Journal in November 2006: " … because maintaining

WHO's budget requires pleasing constituencies, the agency's main

product-impartial public health expertise-is undermined. "

The Global Health Watch Report-2 (GHW2) published in October 2008 points out

that the Gates Foundation is governed by the Gates family with no board of

trustees; nor any formal parliamentary or legislative scrutiny. " There is no

answerability to the governments of low-income countries, nor to the WHO. Little

more than the court of public opinion exists to hold it accountable, " says the

report.This lack of accountability and transparency is cited as a major

problem by health experts.

The ties between the Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical industry has also come

under scrutiny as Gates funded organisation like the Global Alliance for

Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) has many pharmaceutical companies, especially

those from the vaccine industry, as its members. GAVI has pushed many expensive

vaccines into national immunization programmes in developing countries.

This according to GHW2 has led " health activists to question if the Foundation

is converting global health problems into business opportunities " for the pharma

industry.

The Gates' Foundation's position on intellectual property (IP) rights is also a

cause for concern. After all, Microsoft, along with other corporations, is

pushing to strengthen IP rights and patent laws even further. Stronger IP rights

will affect developing countries' right to allow generic companies to

manufacture essential medicines at affordable prices. Patents and monopolies

only make medicines more expensive and inaccessible to majority of the people.

In October 2007, without consulting the WHO, other international bodies or

so-called partners, the Foundation launched a new campaign to eradicate malaria.

For many, this was an example of how the Foundation was setting the global

health agenda and making the international health community follow.

The emergence of cash rich players including World Bank, the Gates Foundation

and GAVI, along with the shift to the public-private partnership mode in health,

has left the WHO often following an agenda, rather than setting it.

If the WHO is perceived to be hijacked by private corporate sector it will lose

its authority as an impartial norm setter on global health issues, points out

GWH2. The report asks: " Has the WHO compromised itself through its partnership

with the private sector? It is hard to say. But there are certainly reasons for

concern. "

Levine says the only way out is to reduce dependence on external funding by

demanding an adequate core budget from member states to ensure full funding for

priority functions.

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/staying-alive/entry/gates-billions-for-\

you-no