Towards SDG Target 16.7

SDG Target 16.7Early this morning, I woke up suddenly thinking about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and specifically of SDG Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”. Maybe I’m weird to think of this before sunrise. Perhaps I’m suffering from severe repetitive jargon syndrome provoked by an overdose of hearing the SDGs’ mantra “Leave no one behind”. It constantly reverberates down from those at the top of the UN and its Agencies such as the WHO, UNICEF, UNDP and a dozen other organizations.

It seems that they have overlooked Target 16.7 of the SDGs. It appears that most of these UN Agencies do not allow the participation of the millions of some of the most ‘left behind’ — poor folks living with life-threatening or life changing diseases or disabilities, nor support the development of systems for accountable representation to assure that they are included in decisions that concern them.

Maybe those at the top just don’t understand the meaning of “… inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”. Or perhaps they can not see the value of having the most affected communities having a ‘seat at the table’ with other stakeholders. Have they not read the SDG declarations that they agreed? Have they forgotten that they have signed the Common Understanding between the UN Agencies in 2003, and committed to advancing the meaningful participation of those concerned by their policy decisions and processes?

Read more…

End Ivory-Toweritis

Ivory-Toweritis“Ivory-Toweritis is a curable mental illness, but we urgently need to develop a rapid diagnostic test to end the suffering it causes.” – Dr. Fora Rites
—————————————

Is it disrespect or disinterest? Too high-up to exchange with folks from the ‘bottom’?  Too well-paid and too professional to collaborate with unpaid activists and their community based organisations?

Why is there such an enormous barrier between those who make global health policies and those who must live, or die, by their decisions?  Why is there such a gap between their stated goals on “inclusive engagement” and the de-facto exclusion of affected communities from the decision-making processes?

Over the years, we have tried to connect with many public health professionals that make decisions that impact on our health and that of our communities. The aim is always to begin a dialogue on how to turn their noble words, like ‘leaving no one behind’, into realities on the ground through collaboration and cooperation.

Sometimes, we have had responses to our e-mails and start an exchange which is of mutual interest. We’ve established some ongoing relationships and a few direct collaborations, which has shown that working together as real partners is possible even within the top-down world of public health governance.

However, too often we have not had any replies to our correspondence. Too often attempts to establish contact are like a long one-way street that goes nowhere — a dead end. Gentle reminders have proved to be a waste of gentleness. We are not alone in being disempowered and disheartened — many other community activists and NGOs are becoming jaded by public health experts that say “we need to hear the ‘voices’ of the community” yet make it impossible to actually do so in real terms. The hypocrisy of those at the ‘top’ is eating away at the good will of engaged folks at the ‘bottom’, which discourages the local public participation that should be central to efforts to improve health and well-being on the ground.

Read more…