WHO Home Page

Office of the Director-General

World Health Organization
Organisation mondiale de la Santé

UPDATED: Tue Jun 18 13:39:47 2002

Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland        
Director-General
World Health Organization

Geneva
17-18 June 2002

   

Consultation on national responses to the report 

of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health

Ladies and gentlemen,

The report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health was launched last December. Only six months ago. But since then, much has happened. The report has aroused intense interest around the world.

This meeting is important as it is the first time that we have had a chance to focus specifically on what the CMH Report means for individual countries. We are fortunate to have with us today such a distinguished group of participants. From ministries of finance, ministries of planning, ministries of health; the World Bank, UN organizations, donor agencies, foundations and regional commissions. We have with us members of the CMH family – both Commissioners and working group members. From WHO too – we bring together staff from our regional and country offices, as well as colleagues from headquarters.

Let me warmly welcome you all, and thank you for making this meeting possible.

Transformation. To me that is the central message of the CMH Report. Transformation from better health to better livelihoods. From better livelihoods to economic growth. And from economic growth to a sustained, and sustainable, reduction in poverty.

One reason why the CMH Report has aroused such intense interest is that it contains a powerful blend of aspiration and realism. It is clearly an important advocacy document, but it also contains many practical recommendations to national authorities.

This provides the theme for our meeting. Transformation once again: but this time from advocacy to action. From a global framework to country specific strategies. Not prescriptions, of course – as each country will factor in its own circumstances – but shared ideas, core functions and common objectives, as we work collectively towards the Millennium Development Goals for health.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Two and a half years ago, when I asked Jeff Sachs to lead an independent Commission, we had two objectives. The first was a technical one. We were seeking a way of bringing together the best brains in the world and getting them to focus on the complex set of relationships that exist between health, economic development, trade and poverty reduction. If we are to present the case for greater investment in health, we must be standing on solid ground. We have to get the facts straight and marshal the evidence. In this respect, the Commission and its six working groups have helped us enormously.

But the Commission also had a political objective. Including macro-economists and senior policy makers as members of the Commission certainly brought a fresh perspective to the analytical work. But these eminent individuals also have the ear of other decision-makers who are less familiar with the world of health and development. The Commissioners are powerful advocates for our message.

If I think back fifteen years, to the time when we launched the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, we learnt some useful lessons. As with the CMH, there was an inner circle of Commissioners – and around them a wider network of people from government, researchers and academics, NGOs and many, many others. Once the initial launch was over our strategy was to keep widening the circle. Continuously expanding the network of people that were actively debating and spreading the Commission’s messages.

We see similar developments with the CMH and its widening circle. The CMH was extensively discussed at the World Economic Forum in New York this year, at the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey in March, and at the World Health Assembly. In the discussions between heads of state and ministers at Monterrey health featured prominently – and the CMH helped in providing a well-argued case to illustrate the need for increases in development spending by governments and international agencies. And we are beginning to see a difference in renewed commitments for increases in development assistance.

At this year’s World Health Assembly, the recommendations of the CMH were explicitly recognized as part of the strategy for achieving the millennium development goals. In August this year, the follow-up to CMH will be central to WHO’s inputs to the World Conference on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

All new ideas need their champions. Internationally there are now many people that have internalized the ideas contained in the CMH Report and made them part of their thinking. We now need similar champions at national level.

As we work together over the next two days, we will look at some of the responses that are being considered by countries represented in this room. We will discuss some of the specific recommendations of the CMH, such as the establishment of time-limited national commissions. These are but one means of providing a national focus for scaling up work on health.

From my experience with sustainable development, it is important to recognize that a national commission, or its equivalent, will only be a success if it is part of a much broader national debate on health and poverty - which involves legislators, civil society, local authorities, the media, academics, industry and others.

Health is now higher on the development agenda than ever before. With global political commitment have come global initiatives, new partnerships between public and private sectors, and new alliances between countries. These are positive and exciting developments. But they also bring with them a complexity that is new for both national governments and their development partners. Our challenge – which underpins the purpose of this meeting – is to understand and to manage these developments in a way that brings maximal benefit to poor people.

As we interpret the messages of the report – balancing aspiration with realism – we have to take account of what is feasible. But I am sure that Jeff Sachs would join me in urging you not to lose sight of the aspirations. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals will not happen if we stick to business as usual. We have to scale up, think in terms of a quantum leap. Doing more, doing it differently and doing it better.

A key challenge is to make sure that what we plan is firmly embedded in national development processes. The CMH is not a new stand-alone initiative. Let us see it as a stimulus to act. A stimulus that will make us look closely to see whether health is adequately reflected in a national poverty reduction strategies. A stimulus to look closely at existing national health plans: are they sufficiently focused? how can we make sure that poor people really benefit? how can we create new partnerships that extend the reach of health services? These are the kind of questions I hope you will be asking.

The Commissioners' central message applies to countries: it focuses on the need for additional resources and on the ways in which these will be used. This is why our meeting brings together officials from finance ministries and development agencies, as well as health professionals. To achieve our shared goals will require much more money than is currently available to many countries. But let us remember: we know that we can ask for more, because we know now how to spend it and we can show that we can spend it well.

Scaling up requires not only that we have a clear sense of the cost of interventions, but that we can track progress and measure results. It is not just a case of showing that there is a gap between what is needed and what is available. We have to be able to demonstrate clearly what can be achieved with the additional monies that are becoming available: then we can seize current opportunities and make the case for a long-term step increase in funding and action for health.

We need to use the momentum generated by the CMH Report to follow through actions at the country level that widen the traditional constituencies of health, bringing in new and varied partners working across sectors, placing poor people and poor communities squarely at the centre. These new ways of working at country level will yield rich dividends in terms of more monies and better health outcomes for all.

Thank you very much, and I look forward to working with you over the next two days.

Return to Director-General's main page