|
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
Biosecurity BriefingBritish Issue Report on Intergovernmental Organizations and Infectious Diseases Control By Brooke Courtney, July 28, 2008 On July 21, 2008, the British House of Lords released a two-volume report, Diseases Know No Frontiers: How effective are Intergovernmental Organisations in controlling their spread?, which examines how intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), whose members are national governments, are tackling the spread of infectious diseases.1 The report committee was appointed in November 2007 by the House “to consider how contemporary issues of international policy are addressed through United Kingdom membership of intergovernmental organizations (excluding the European Union), including their impact and effectiveness and value for money.”1 While the committee considered several areas for inquiry, including peacekeeping, human trafficking, and controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the global spread of infectious diseases “commanded clear support as deserving a clear-cutting and urgent inquiry.”1 According to a Parliament news release on July 21, the committee’s key findings include the need to improve international disease surveillance systems, shift some international health funding from treating specific diseases to improving underlying health services in developing countries, and better coordinate surveillance for detecting animal diseases.2 Recognizing the existence of several serious diseases that threaten global health, the six-month study focused on HIV, pandemic influenza, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria, all of which “pose serious problems for global health if not controlled,” and were selected as working examples of how IGOs are addressing these issues.1,2 Volume I of the report explores the key factors influencing the spread and control of infectious diseases, such as poverty, population growth, and globalization; the interaction of the various actors in the field of international health; and the accountability and management of funding for infectious disease control.1 Volume II provides the detailed oral and written evidence that informed Volume I.3 The report notes that the landscape of international disease control is “crowded and poorly coordinated,” and it outlines a comprehensive list of recommendations for the British government, including:
According to Lord Soley, Chairman of the International Organisations Committee, the Committee has “been impressed by the increased international resources and commitment which are now being devoted to controlling infectious diseases…However, for that to be effective it is vital that there is sufficient surveillance of disease outbreaks to limit their spread.”2 Additionally, the Committee has felt that “there should be more focus on improving health services in the developing world generally, as without improved health facilities it will be far more difficult for current treatment campaigns to take root and for serious infectious disease outbreaks to be identified and dealt with when they occur.”2 In related news, the International Herald Tribune reported on July 22, 2008, that the British government announced that a team of government experts had been formed to examine the potential threats to Britain from terrorism, pandemic disease, food shortages, energy scarcity, and natural disasters.4 According to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, “the aim is to safeguard the nation, its citizens, our prosperity and our way of life against a constantly changing security environment.” In addition, a 12-member National Security Forum of experts and security officials will be appointed for the purpose of providing guidance to British ministers.4 References
|