Search

Abstract Background Multistakeholder collaboration has emerged as a dominant approach for engaging and mobilising non-state actors; notably embedded in the paradigm of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, considerable ambiguity and contestation surrounds the appropriate terms of public private engagement (PPE) with industry actors. Main body This paper seeks to conceptualise different forms of engagement with the food industry in tackling diet-related noncommunicable disease, within the context of power asymmetries across engaged stakeholders. It does so by introducing the Governance Typology for Public Private Engagement in the Nutrition Sector, a typology for government-led engagement with food industry actors across three domains: (i) the form of industry and civil society actor engagement (i.e., rules of exercising institutional power), based on the degree of participation in formal decision-making as well as participation at different stages in the policy cycle; (ii) the type of industry actors being engaged (i.e., pre-existing power attributes), based on function, size, and product portfolios for profit; and (iii) the substantive policy focus of engagement. Conclusions The Governance Typology for Public Private Engagement in the Nutrition Sector seeks to inform national level nutrition policy makers on good engagement practice with food industry actors and complements existing risk assessment tools. This typology has the potential to inform decision-making on public sector engagement with other industries that profit from products detrimental to human and planetary health.

Abstract Background Gender equality, zero hunger and healthy lives and well-being for all, are three of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that underpin Fiji’s National Development Plan. Work towards each of these goals contributes to the reduction of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). There are gender differences in NCD burden in Fiji. It is, however, unclear whether a gender lens could be more effectively included in nutrition and health-related policies. Methods This study consisted of three components: (i) a policy content analysis of gender inclusion in nutrition and health-related policies (n = 11); (ii) policy analysis using the WHO Gender Analysis tool to identify opportunities for strengthening future policy; and (iii) informant interviews (n = 18), to understand perceptions of the prospects for gender considerations in future policies. Results Gender equality was a goal in seven policies (64%); however, most focused on women of reproductive age. One of the policies was ranked as gender responsive. Main themes from key informant interviews were: 1) a needs-based approach for the focus on specific population groups in policies; 2) gender-related roles and responsibilities around nutrition and health; 3) what is considered “equitable” when it comes to gender, nutrition, and health; 4) current considerations of gender in policies and ideas for further gender inclusion; and 5) barriers and enablers to the inclusion of gender considerations in policies. Informants acknowledged gender differences in the burden of nutrition-related NCDs, yet most did not identify a need for stronger inclusion of gender considerations within policies. Conclusions There is considerable scope for greater inclusion of gender in nutrition and health-related policies in Fiji. This could be done by: 1) framing gender considerations in ways that are actionable and inclusive of a range of gender identities; 2) undertaking advocacy through actor networks to highlight the need for gender-responsive nutrition and health-related policies for key stakeholder groups; 3) ensuring that data collected to monitor policy implementation is disaggregated by sex and genders; and 4) promoting equitable participation in nutrition related issues in communities and governance processes. Action on these four areas are likely critical enablers to more gender equitable NCD reduction in Fiji.

Abstract Background Marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars, or salt (“unhealthy foods”) to children is contributing to increasing child obesity. However, many countries have not implemented WHO recommendations to restrict marketing of unhealthy foods to children. We sought to understand the absence of marketing restrictions and identify potential strategic actions to develop and implement such restrictions in Nepal. Methods Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis was based on Baker et al.’s 18 factor-framework for understanding what drives political commitment to nutrition, organised by five categories: Actors; Institutions; Political and societal contexts; Knowledge, evidence and framing; Capacities and resources. Results All factors in Baker et al.’s framework were reported to be acting largely as barriers to Nepal developing and implementing marketing restrictions. Six factors were identified by the highest number of respondents: the threat of private sector interference in policy-making; lack of international actor support; absence of well-designed and enacted policies and legislation; lack of political commitment to regulate; insufficient mobilisation of existing evidence to spur action and lack of national evidence to guide regulatory design; and weak implementation capacity. Opportunities for progress were identified as Nepal’s ability to combat private sector interference - as previously demonstrated in tobacco control. Conclusions This is the first study conducted in Nepal examining the lack of restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. Our findings reflect the manifestation of power in the policy process. The absence of civil society and a multi-stakeholder coalition demanding change on marketing of unhealthy food to children, the threat of private sector interference in introducing marketing restrictions, the promotion of norms and narratives around modernity, consumption and the primary role of the individual in regulating diet - all have helped create a policy vacuum on marketing restrictions. We propose that stakeholders focus on five strategic actions, including: developing a multi-stakeholder coalition to put and keep marketing restrictions on the health agenda; framing the need for marketing restrictions as critical to protect child rights and government regulation as the solution; and increasing support, particularly through developing more robust global policy guidance.

Abstract Background In 2017, the G20 health ministers convened for the first time to discuss global health and issued a communiqué outlining their health priorities, as the BRICS and G7 have done for years. As these political clubs hold considerable political and economic influence, their respective global health agendas may influence both global health priorities and the priorities of other countries and actors. Methods Given the rising salience of global health in global summitry, we analyzed the health ministerial communiqués issued by the BRICS, G7 and G20 after the SDGs were adopted in 2015. We compared the stated health priorities of the BRICS, G7 and G20 against one another and against the targets of SDG 3 on health, using a traffic light system to assess the quality of their commitments. Results With regard to the SDG 3 targets, the BRICS, G7 and G20 priorities overlapped in their focus on emergency preparedness and universal health coverage, but diverged in areas of environmental pollution, mental health, and maternal and child health. Health issues with considerable associated burdens of disease, including substance use, road traffic injuries and sexual health, were missing from the agendas of all three political clubs. In terms of SDG 3 principles and ways of working, the BRICS, G7 and G20 varied in their emphasis on human rights, equity and engagement with non-state actors, but all expressed their explicit commitment to Agenda 2030. Conclusions The leadership of BRICS, G7 and G20 on global health is welcome. However, their relatively narrow focus on the potential impact of ill-health primarily in relation to the economy and trade may not be sufficiently comprehensive to achieve the Agenda 2030 vision of promoting health equity and leaving no-one behind. Recommendations for the BRICS, G7 and G20 based on this analysis include: 1) expanding focus to the neglected SDG 3 health targets; 2) placing greater emphasis on upstream determinants of health; 3) greater commitment to equity and leaving no-one behind; 4) adopting explicit commitments to rights-based approaches; and 5) making commitments that are of higher quality and which include time-bound quantitative targets and clear accountability mechanisms.

Abstract Background Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) represent a significant threat to human health and well-being, and carry significant implications for economic development and health care and other costs for governments and business, families and individuals. Risks for many of the major NCDs are associated with the production, marketing and consumption of commercially produced food and drink, particularly those containing sugar, salt and transfats (in ultra-processed products), alcohol and tobacco. The problems inherent in primary prevention of NCDs have received relatively little attention from international organizations, national governments and civil society, especially when compared to the attention paid to secondary and tertiary prevention regimes (i.e. those focused on provision of medical treatment and long-term clinical management). This may in part reflect that until recently the NCDs have not been deemed a priority on the overall global health agenda. Low political priority may also be due in part to the complexity inherent in implementing feasible and acceptable interventions, such as increased taxation or regulation of access, particularly given the need to coordinate action beyond the health sector. More fundamentally, governing determinants of risk frequently brings public health into conflict with the interests of profit-driven food, beverage, alcohol and tobacco industries. Materials We use a conceptual framework to review three models of governance of NCD risk: self-regulation by industry; hybrid models of public-private engagement; and public sector regulation. We analyse the challenges inherent in each model, and review what is known (or not) about their impact on NCD outcomes. Conclusion While piecemeal efforts have been established, we argue that mechanisms to control the commercial determinants of NCDs are inadequate and efforts at remedial action too limited. Our paper sets out an agenda to strengthen each of the three governance models. We identify reforms that will be needed to the global health architecture to govern NCD risks, including to strengthen its ability to consolidate the collective power of diverse stakeholders, its authority to develop and enforce clear measures to address risks, as well as establish monitoring and rights-based accountability systems across all actors to drive measurable, equitable and sustainable progress in reducing the global burden of NCDs.

Abstract Background The Global Public Private Partnerships for Health (GPPPH) constitute an increasingly central part of the global health architecture and carry both financial and normative power. Gender is an important determinant of health status, influencing differences in exposure to health determinants, health behaviours, and the response of the health system. We identified 18 GPPPH - defined as global institutions with a formal governance mechanism which includes both public and private for-profit sector actors – and conducted a gender analysis of each. Results Gender was poorly mainstreamed through the institutional functioning of the partnerships. Half of these partnerships had no mention of gender in their overall institutional strategy and only three partnerships had a specific gender strategy. Fifteen governing bodies had more men than women – up to a ratio of 5:1. Very few partnerships reported sex-disaggregated data in their annual reports or coverage/impact results. The majority of partnerships focused their work on maternal and child health and infectious and communicable diseases – none addressed non-communicable diseases (NCDs) directly, despite the strong role that gender plays in determining risk for the major NCD burdens. Conclusions We propose two areas of action in response to these findings. First, GPPPH need to become serious in how they “do” gender; it needs to be mainstreamed through the regular activities, deliverables and systems of accountability. Second, the entire global health community needs to pay greater attention to tackling the major burden of NCDs, including addressing the gendered nature of risk. Given the inherent conflicts of interest in tackling the determinants of many NCDs, it is debatable whether the emergent GPPPH model will be an appropriate one for addressing NCDs.