Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: 'Wicked' is the term used to describe some of the most challenging and complex issues of our time, many of which threaten human health. Climate change, biodiversity loss, persisting poverty, the advancing obesity epidemic, and food insecurity are all examples of such wicked problems. However there is a strong body of evidence describing the solutions for addressing many of these problems. Given that much is known about how many of these problems could be addressed - and given the risks of not acting - what will it take to create the 'tipping point' needed for effective action? MAIN BODY: A recent (2015) court ruling in The Hague held that the Dutch government's stance on climate change was illegal, ordering them to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% within 5 years (by 2020), relative to 1990 levels. The case was filed on behalf of 886 Dutch citizens, suing the government for violating human rights and climate changes treaties by failing to take adequate action to prevent the harmful impacts of climate change. This judicial ruling has the potential to provide a way forward, inspiring other civil movements and creating a template from which to address other wicked problems. CONCLUSION: This judicial strategy to address the need to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands is not a magic bullet, and requires a particular legal and institutional setting. However it has the potential to be a game-changer - providing an example of a strategy for achieving domestic regulatory change that is likely to be replicable in some countries elsewhere, and providing an example of a particularly 'wicked' (in the positive, street-slang sense of the word) strategy to address seemingly intractable and wicked problems.

Addressing the increasingly globalised determinants of many important problems affecting human health is a complex task requiring collective action. We suggest that part of the solution to addressing intractable global health issues indeed lies with the role of new legal instruments in the form of globally binding treaties, as described in the recent article of Nikogosian and Kickbusch. However, in addition to the use of international law to develop new treaties, another part of the solution may lie in innovative use of existing legal instruments. A 2015 court ruling in The Hague, which ordered the Dutch government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% within five years, complements this perspective, suggesting a way forward for addressing global health problems that critically involves civil society and innovative use of existing domestic legal instruments.

Modern trade negotiations have delivered a plethora of bilateral and regional preferential trade agreements (PTAs), which involve considerable risk to public health, thus placing demands on governments to strengthen administrative regulatory capacities in regard to the negotiation, implementation and on-going management of PTAs. In terms of risk management, the administrative regulatory capacity requisite for appropriate negotiation of PTAs is different to that for the implementation or on-going management of PTAs, but at all stages the capacity needed is expensive, skill-intensive and requires considerable infrastructure, which smaller and poorer states especially struggle to find. It is also a task generally underestimated. If states do not find ways to increase their capacities then PTAs are likely to become much greater drivers of health inequities. Developing countries especially struggle to find this capacity. In this article we set out the importance of administrative regulatory capacity and coordination to manage the risks to public health associated with PTAs, and suggest ways countries can improve their capacity.

BACKGROUND: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the major global cause of morbidity and mortality. In Mongolia, a number of health policies have been developed targeting the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. This paper aimed to evaluate the extent to which NCD-related policies introduced in Mongolia align with the World Health Organization (WHO) 2008-2013 Action Plan for the Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of NCDs. METHODS: We conducted a review of policy documents introduced by the Government of Mongolia from 2000 to 2013. A literature review, internet-based search, and expert consultation identified the policy documents. Information was extracted from the documents using a matrix, mapping each document against the six objectives of the WHO 2008-2013 Action Plan for the Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of NCDs and five dimensions: data source, aim and objectives of document, coverage of conditions, coverage of risk factors and implementation plan. 45 NCD-related policies were identified. RESULTS: Prevention and control of the common NCDs and their major risk factors as described by WHO were widely addressed, and policies aligned well with the objectives of the WHO 2008-2013 Action Plan for the Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of NCDs. Many documents included explicit implementation or monitoring frameworks. It appears that each objective of the WHO 2008-2013 NCD Action Plan was well addressed. Specific areas less well and/or not addressed were chronic respiratory disease, physical activity guidelines and dietary standards. CONCLUSIONS: The Mongolian Government response to the emerging burden of NCDs is a population-based public health approach that includes a national multisectoral framework and integration of NCD prevention and control policies into national health policies. Our findings suggest gaps in addressing chronic respiratory disease, physical activity guidelines, specific food policy actions restricting sales advertising of food products, and a lack of funding specifically supporting NCD research. The neglect of these areas may hamper addressing the NCD burden, and needs immediate action. Future research should explore the effectiveness of national NCD policies and the extent to which the policies are implemented in practice.

Agriculture in the European Union (EU) is strongly influenced by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). There have been repeated calls for CAP to address nutrition-related health, particularly obesity and non-communicable disease (NCD) in the EU. However, aligning agricultural policy such as CAP with nutrition is complex, not least because the aims of agricultural policy are predominantly economic, presenting a challenge for developing coherence between agricultural trade and health policy. This research examined the political priority given to nutrition-related health concerns within CAP to date, and the solutions suggested by agricultural, trade and health policy-makers and public health nutrition advocates, via interviews of 20 high-level participants from respective sectors. The participants provided diverse perspectives, often varying by sector and institution, on the connections between agricultural policy and nutrition-related health, the extent to which nutrition concerns have been addressed via CAP and whether CAP is an appropriate and effective policy approach to improve nutrition-related health in the EU in the future. The key findings suggest the need for communication and agreement of clear high-level nutrition guidelines, clarity on the EU mandate to address nutrition-related health concerns via policy, and stronger engagement of civil society in the issues if CAP is to address nutrition more than it is doing currently. The difference in worldviews between agricultural/trade representatives, and those from public health, also needs to be addressed.

In 2008, The Council of Australian Governments set a target to increase by 5% the proportion of Australian adults at a healthy body weight by 2017, over a 2009 baseline. Target setting is a critical component of public health policy for obesity prevention; however, there is currently no context within which to choose such targets.

The impact of global increases in human mobility on health systems is a little understood but highly political issue in recipient countries. South Africa (SA) is the greatest recipient of migrants from the Southern African Development Community. There is a policy of free primary health care for all in SA – as outlined in the Constitution and the National Health Act – but its interpretation is less inclusive within implementation guidelines and practice. As a result, non-nationals face access challenges, and public health responses have engaged with migration to a limited extent. Migration provides opportunities for health and economic benefits, and has the potential to positively and negatively affect health systems. To maximise positive impact and mitigate against potential negative consequences requires attention and engagement of policy-makers from health and other sectors, including public health researchers and health workers. We outline our current research and existing responses to migration and health in southern Africa.