Summaries of contributions
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe
WHO Regional Office for Europe strongly supports the code. Among the comments it has submitted are:
- Compensation is not highlighted in the draft code, however, in Europe the targeting of assistance to support health workforce development in “source” countries is one of the central aspirations in the Norwegian government approach, and has been seen in aid activity by European Member States in countries with critical shortages of health workers. There should be more transparency on the ongoing activities and mechanisms. This could be further elaborated in the document both in terms of lessons learned from good practices and explicit need in global solidarity.
- The issue of building and sustaining trust between “source” and “destination” countries needs to be expressed in the code.
- A significant innovation in the draft code is the proposed provisions of data collection and information exchange. We suggest combining articles 7 and 8 in one titled: “Data collection, research and information exchange”.
- Monitoring of the impact of any global code will have resource implications and will challenge the capacity of any institution that has a monitoring role. The priority should be to identify the minimum additional effort required to enable the impact of the code to be assessed.
Government of Japan
The Government of Japan welcomes the WHO’s work on the code of practice, which follows up the Hokkaido Toyako Summit Leaders Declaration.
However, there are a number of expressions which implicate strong bindingness to Member States, though the code is to promote voluntary principles. In particular paragraphs 8.2, 10.1 and 10.2 provide that Member States should report data regularly to WHO on a biennial basis after the adaptation of the code; WHO will review the implementation of the code. All of these should be deleted since they are regarded as having de facto legal-binding effect to Member States.
The definitions of the terms, such as “recruitment” and “recruiter”, should be provided in the draft. Other terms which are already given definitions should be reflected in the draft.