Blog

New Leadership in Global Health–BRICS Health Ministers pledge support

On July 11, 2011, Health Ministers from the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—came together in Beijing for the BRICS Health Ministers’ Meeting. The primary focus of the meeting was to discuss these countries’ role in providing wider access to quality and affordable health care around the world. The meeting concluded with the Health Ministers signing of the ‘Beijing Declaration,’ which called for collaboration with international health organizations, as well as with each other. These collaborations would hopefully yield the promotion of technology transfer and accessibility to “affordable, quality, efficacious, safe medical products and other health technologies” in developing countries. The Declaration also stressed the importance of reforming international organizations like WHO in order to improve transparency, efficiency, and accountability.

The Health Ministers collectively acknowledged the lack of access to health care and affordable medicine in their own countries, and recognized the benefit of this collaboration and technology transfer to significant portions of their populations. UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibé, who also attended the Ministers’ Meeting, spoke to the unique position of BRICS nations of being “a voice with incredible economic, technological and innovative strength…[that is] intimately connected to the needs and interests of the developing world” (unaids.org).

The increasing economic power of the BRICS countries in the global economy does place them in an interesting, new arena of foreign aid. These five nations account for 40 percent of the world’s population, 18 percent of global trade, and 45 percent of current growth. However, in four out of five of the BRICS countries, two thirds of the people who need HIV treatment are not receiving it. Are these countries really in a position to bring about real, substantial change to the way health care is accessed in the world?

Sidibé says yes.  “It will help us to change the course of debate on public health by bringing to the center the voice of the poorest segment of society by making sure that social justice and the redistribution of opportunities will become a major aspect of the way we deliver public goods to the people,” he says. South African Health Minister Dr. Aaron Motsoaledi stated that the BRICS countries could form a strong partnership with international health organizations because they are the ones that have the “most of the affordable drugs… to supply the developing world.” An example of this is the new meningitis conjugate vaccine developed by the Serum Institute of India, with an estimated cost of only 50 cents a dose. Because these countries share similar health care challenges in their own countries, they have the unique understanding of the problem of accessibility. This could yield a more informed and effective approach to efforts of improving health care systems worldwide.

In light of the recently approved legislation from the U.S. House of Representatives that proposes deep cuts to the foreign aid budget, the entrance of the BRICS nations into the foreign assistance arena could not come at a better time. As these countries seek greater influence in the global development community, the world could see a significant shift in how international aid is administered, and ultimately, what this means for the overall global economy. It is up to us to decide what the role of the U.S. will be in that change.

For more information on the first BRICS Health Ministers Meeting, go to <http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/BRICS-countries-vow-to-help-poor-nations-in-health-1460626.php>.

Moldova and Europe: Change, Diversity, and the Future

“What is the strongest integrating force for this young country?”

This question, posed by an audience member, was one in a flurry of audience participation at an event to discuss post-Soviet countries with Global Washington member and volunteer, Liuba Ceban.  Ceban, a native Moldovan and Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow, answered that there isn’t necessarily a single uniting force for the young country. She explained that within the country, some people desire to reintegrate with Romania while others wish Moldova to be a prosperous nation of its own. The country is equally divided on matters of allegiance; arguments often erupt as to whether Moldova was better off under Soviet occupation and whether the country’s current trajectory towards EU membership is wise. Ceban closed the question with a resolute “it’s too soon to tell where the country will end up.”

It’s safe to say that little Moldova has been going through a lot of changes. The country, which historically has been primarily agrarian, has a mushrooming IT industry whose brisk pace left even Ceban surprised. She also mentioned the challenge that growing diversity will pose to Moldova. Today, the predominant faith is Christian Orthodox. But because of the country’s communist legacy, many other citizens still harbor resentment towards religion; the “biggest evil”, as it was sometimes called. Together with the very recent registration of Moldova’s Muslim community, these combating viewpoints have made the issue of religious freedom a very relevant one.

Ceban often returned to the theme “Eastern Europe cannot be thought of as a package.” The issue of religion is just one of many divergent points between the Eastern Europe states. Belarus, a country to the north of Moldova, has political freedom of religion but some intolerance among the community. Ukraine is even freer religiously, and Ceban attributed that to the previous leadership of the country’s more pro-EU policies and agenda. Moldova is also the only former soviet country with a strong, intact Communist party.

Ultimately, the message that Ceban brought to the discussion was that with the diversity of opinions and backgrounds and the rapid pace of change in Moldova, there’s no telling where the post-Romanian post-Soviet country will end up. But the country’s journey cannot be grouped with Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, and Ukraine, as if they all come from identical history and culture.

Liuba Ceban started a nonprofit called WIN (Worldwide Initiatives Network) Moldova alongside former Peace Corps volunteers, whose goal is to promote partnerships for sustainable change and development in Moldova and to work with at risk children. The institution will be running a promotional event on July 6th from 6:00pm to 8:00pm at the Watertown Hotel, 4242 Roosevelt Way NE Seattle, WA 98105.

Global Washington Continues Series on the Role of Tech in Development

Hope or Hype? Mobile Phones & Development

In South Africa, human milk banks are a critical component to combatting HIV transmission from mother to child. At these milk banks, staff heat a mother’s milk to a specific temperature, removing HIV from the milk without destroying antibodies critical for babies. While many urban milk banks have sophisticated systems to ensure milk is consistently heated to this critical temperature, rural milk banks often don’t have the resources to be so exact. This is the sort of problem that Gaetano Borriello, a faculty member of the computer science and technology department at the University of Washington, tackles with technology. Using temperature monitors in rural milk banks, Borriello and his team build censors that connect to cell phones. The censors send temperature information to a central quality assurance manager who monitors the heating graph and sends an “approval” back to the rural milk bank – again via cell phone – that the milk is safe for infant consumption.
Borriello was one of three panel members at a recent event, the second  in Global Washington’s series on the role of technology in global development.  This panel consisted of three experts in technology from diverse backgrounds and perspectives: Kentaro Toyama from UC Berkeley and formerly with Microsoft’s India program; David Edelstein from Grameen Foundation’s Technology Center; and Gaetano Borriello from UW. Each panel member discussed his experience in using technology in global development as well as his thoughts on the successes and failures of those attempting to use technology in this way.

Technology can deliver information to a wider audience and allow organizations to track and revise programs in real time but must be adapted to the needs of developing countries

Borriello began by discussing the role of mobile devices in “provid[ing] an opportunity to deliver educational information and decision support to a wider circle of more lightly trained workers.” However, he cautions, “consumer devices need to be adapted to the needs of lower income countries…usage models and business models may differ greatly from one context to another.” For example, with the increased availability of smart phones in developing countries, desktops – particularly in rural areas – are not desirable.
Edelstein discussed the role of technology in disseminating and collecting information via a trusted intermediary with an illustration of a Grameen Foundation program in Uganda. In this program, community knowledge workers – the trusted intermediary in this context – are able to provide information on agriculture to rural farmers. In one visit to a rural farmer whose chickens were diseased, a community knowledge worker was able to input the chicken’s symptoms into a database on her smart phone, diagnose the disease and get information on local, low-cost mechanisms to cure the chickens.
Community health workers, armed with this smart phone technology, are also able to provide the Grameen Foundation with real time data, which allows Foundation staff to track and revise their project as they go.

“Technology only amplifies human intent and capacity”

Kentaro Toyama stressed his conclusion that “technology only amplifies human intent and capacity.”  For more on Toyama’s thoughts on the pros and cons of technology, see an earlier post on a previous presentation Toyama gave to Global Washington members. Toyama asked Global Washington audience members a question to illustrate this point: If Bill Gates and a rural Indian farmer were both given the same smart phone and 24 hours to raise as much money as possible for vaccines, who would raise the most money? The audience agreed with Toyama that Gates would far surpass the farmer. Why? Because smart phones are only a tool which amplify Gates’ wealthier contacts and his experience in fundraising.

How one program can be an example of both good and bad technology use in global development

Following the presentation, Global Washington Executive Director Bookda Gheiser opened the audience discussion with a request that each speaker highlight a good and bad example of mobile technology use in global development work. Among other examples given, Toyama discussed an example that showed both the good and bad sides of technology. A Catholic Relief Services project in Niger, aimed at improving adult literacy via a two year program with eight months of adult literacy education, showed that those in the program who used SMS service progressed further. This was an example of technology as a tool to positively impact global development. But, Toyama cautioned, this can quickly be flipped to a negative example of technology if other global development programs take away the message that “mobile phones help with adult literacy.” This, in fact, was not the case. Toyama argues that without the critical services of Catholic Relief Services and its entire literacy program, one could not replicate the literacy results, regardless of the technology used.

“Key ingredients” for successful technology use in global development

The event closed with each panel member addressing a Global Washington member’s question on the “recipe” for successful use of technology in global development.  “Key ingredients” include:

• – Consider the long-term business model and sustainability plan for the technology’s use
• – Understand the target user and their needs
• – Ensure the ability to continually tweak projects based upon real time results
• – Always be in the field or closely connected to those working in the field
• – Understand the effect of the program with the technology as compared to the program without the technology
• – Align with programs and organizations that have end goals focused on development, versus technology

Global Washington’s mission is to convene, advocate, and strengthen the international development sector in Washington State, with an emphasis on the sectors of Global Health, Global Education, Environmental Sustainability, and Poverty Alleviation.  In this role, Global Washington brings together its members and the community to discuss critical global topics.. Consider attending the next event in Global Washington’s technology series with Kentaro Toyama, “The Dark Side of ICT” on August 9^th. You can sign up at globalwa.org.

Written by Bridgette Greenhaw