A wake-up call or missed call?

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attends a news conference on the coronavirus (COVID-2019) in Geneva, Switzerland, on February 24, 2020. FILE PHOTO: REUTERS

We are passing through critical times. The world has never seen such gloom and uncertainty since the World War II. Despite its technological progress, especially in medical sciences, the global community has been gripped by fear and concerns about whether it would be possible to eliminate COVIT-19, the most dangerous enemy of humanity in contemporary times. The intensity, ferocity and toll of this virus present an enormous challenge to human advancement as normal and routine activities worldwide have come to a standstill. The monetary, social and environmental costs are mounting up to scales beyond perception.    

If this trend is not checked or reversed within a couple of months, the social and economic progress of countries and regions will be impeded. It will adversely impact business and trade while GDP growth will slacken in several countries in the near to medium term. Governments will have to concentrate on mobilising a huge amount of additional resources to compensate wage costs and subsidise sharply declining output in key sectors.

Were there possibilities to identify and control this crisis at the preliminary stages? We will have to find an answer to that. But any citizen of the world may ponder whether the key international organisation mandated to look after human health, World Health Organization (WHO), has done its "homework" right over the past several years. We are aware that the WHO emerged as a specialised agency under Article 57 of the UN Charter. Its stated objective is "attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health." Further to this, I would like to draw the attention of all concerned to the following clauses of Article 2 (relating to the functions of WHO): 2(c) "to assist Governments in strengthening health services"; 2(g) "to advance work to eradicate epidemics, endemic and other diseases"; 2(k) "to propose conventions, agreements and regulations, and make recommendations with respect to international health matters," etc.

Keeping the above in view, citizens have valid questions on whether the WHO has been able to achieve its targeted strategic and functional objectives, and deliver in accordance with its given mandate. The WHO has been working for over five decades and has produced some results in the past. However, since 2000, the WHO appears to have faltered in delivering the expected level of outputs, presumably due to capacity constraints and managerial inefficiencies. It is indeed relevant to raise these issues, as it appears lessons have not been duly derived from past experiences in handling similar infectious diseases and epidemics.

The following issues warrant careful attention and extensive discourse at this stage: (1) Different countries and regions were confronted with at least eight types of serious virus in the past two decades (e.g. Ebola, SARS, MERS). Based on the experiences in controlling those viruses, did the WHO take protective and pre-emptive actions to identify the nature of these virus-related infections, so as to remain prepared for facing probable critical situations in the future? (2) What did the WHO do to strengthen medical monitoring, surveillance and impact evaluation based on past experiences? (3) How effectively are the WHO country programmes aligned with the respective country health programmes in terms of preventive mechanism, risk mitigation, intensive community platform and broader stakeholder engagement? (4) Given realistic scenarios in which country health systems or regional health arrangements need further stimulus or improvements, what has the WHO done to ensure adequate technical support and efficient coordination on these matters? (5) If there are concerns about a similar virus spreading even years from now, does the WHO have a strategic vision to ensure the world does not suffer like this again? (6) Member-countries have substantially increased contribution to the WHO to ensure effective outcomes and impact. Will the WHO clarify what proportion of this was utilised for research and development thrusts? (7) Will the WHO confirm whether its regional offices in East and Southeast Asia took appropriate actions on first hearing of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China? (8) Will the WHO consider exclusive window for responding to critical needs and undertake vulnerability assessments well in advance to enable countries cushion cross-border virus shocks?

These questions and issues are not aimed at putting the WHO in the dock, but to trigger fast and effective actions to control the Covid-19 on the one hand, and, on the other, to chart a focused Plan of Action to give further support and momentum to country health systems in combating the current menace. In moving ahead to do justice to their mandate and meet human expectations, the WHO is advised to undertake the following: (1) keep member-countries informed about the disease detection programmes it is undertaking to address the current critical challenges; (2) work closely with national health institutions both in the public and private sectors to strengthen multi-sector institutions and platforms; (3) support achieving concrete outcomes on strengthening forecasting, monitoring, evaluation and surveillance; (4) encourage advancement in community-based approach to risk mitigation and fast-track response to minimise losses; (5) coordinate more effectively with the private sector and regional health institutions to determine rapid response to the sudden outbreak of infectious diseases; (6) strengthen formal and informal approaches and processes within countries to accelerate precautionary inputs, facilities and services.

In addition to the above, the WHO should give regular updates on the progress of developing vaccines, stages of the coronavirus pandemic and its much-expected subsequent downgradation within weeks.

SAARC leaders have just agreed on an Emergency Fund as well as intensive consultation and coordination among governments, private sector and health experts to fight the virus. The WHO should come forward to support regional initiatives similar to this. A Special Session of the UN Health Ministers or WHO Governing Board should be convened as soon as possible to give directions on WHO programme effectiveness and sustainability. The UNGA in September this year could consider an updated Program of Action for the WHO's enhanced effectiveness in the coming decade. The UN's priority intervention is called for as the prolonged impact of Covid-19 would weaken the UN's focus on development effectiveness and SDG targets.

The WHO announcement about Covid-19 being a pandemic requires immediate follow-up actions. The WHO should urgently spell out short and mid-term programmes, which should involve further transparency and accountability, as well as their overall effectiveness and sustainability. One just hopes it is not too late for the WHO to treat this as a wake-up call. Better late than never. Certainly, it should not be a missed call.

Dr Mohammed Parvez Imdad, Ph.D., worked in National and International Civil Service for several years. He currently works as Lead Economist, Policy Analyst and Senior Consultant.

Email: mpinayefmimdad@gmail.com