Latest news with #WHA
Bangkok Post
16-07-2025
- Business
- Bangkok Post
WHA shrugs off impact of US tariffs
While the US's controversial reciprocal tariffs are causing some delays to international investment, Thailand is not expected to face a serious impact, according to WHA Corp, a Thai developer of industrial estates and built-to-suit logistics facilities. The uncertainties surrounding what the final tariff rates will be following negotiations between the US and several countries, including China and India, has caused some investors to postpone their plans to expand their businesses into countries destined to face steep tariffs. Investment decisions will not be made until the talks are finished. Thailand is also negotiating with the US to reduce the 36% import duty on Thai products before the rate takes effect on Aug 1. Foreign investment in Thailand should not be seriously affected, said Jareeporn Jarukornsakul, group chief executive and chairman of WHA's executive committee. "We are confident Thailand has strengths to draw foreign investment, including the state's attractive investment privileges and prime industrial areas in the Eastern Economic Corridor [EEC]," she said, referring to the area that covers parts of Chon Buri, Rayong and Chachoengsao, forming a strategic location that will be developed into Thailand's high-tech industrial hub. Ms Jareeporn was speaking during the "Decode 2025" seminar, during which business leaders shared their views on mid-year economic signals in 2025, which has seen many economic challenges so far, including the impact of tensions in the Middle East and US President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariff policy, which threatens to weaken global trade. She believes many investors want to establish businesses in Thailand because they want to avoid the impact of geopolitical conflicts and a trade war. "It is true the world will be affected by the tariffs, but investment will continue because the tariff rates will decline when Trump leaves office," said Ms Jareeporn. WHA expects its sales of industrial land to Thai and foreign investors to reach 2,300 rai this year, higher than its target of 1,750 rai. Industries that will keep growing in the country include home appliances, electronic products as well as electric vehicles, batteries and their supply chains.
Bangkok Post
14-07-2025
- Health
- Bangkok Post
High rates hurt public healthcare
May's 78th World Health Assembly (WHA) -- the annual meeting of the World Health Organization's member states -- ended on a self-congratulatory note. From an agreement on pandemic preparedness to increases in assessed contributions to the WHO, there were plenty of achievements to tout. But there was an elephant in the room, hiding behind a banner reading "One World for Health": the high borrowing costs faced by African countries. Despite being the world's youngest continent, Africa bears 24% of the global disease burden. Yet it accounts for less than 1% of global health spending. In 2001, African countries decided to take matters into their own hands, pledging to devote at least 15% of national budgets to health. Yet more than two decades later, only two countries have reached that target. On average, governments on the continent allocate a mere 1.48%of their GDP to health, while 37% of health spending comes directly out of citizens' pockets. Borrowing costs are a major reason why. Whereas high-income countries borrow at an interest rate of 2–3%, their African counterparts can face rates above 10%. This discrepancy -- which reflects investors' perception of heightened risk in African economies -- means that governments on the continent often must choose between making debt payments or buying medicines, hiring doctors and building health clinics. The cost of capital costs lives. Consider Kenya's ill-fated Managed Equipment Services (MES) programme, a public-private partnership aimed at enhancing service availability at hospitals through the provision of modern equipment. The programme did provide high-tech equipment to many hospitals. But, given the cost of capital for investment, Kenya could not deliver the infrastructure or personnel to use it. In Ghana, where debt-service costs have left little fiscal space, nearly 75% of the government's health budget now goes to health-care workers' wages, leaving little funding for other crucial expenses, from medicines to maternal-health programmes. In 2023, a shortage of antimalarial drugs forced some rural clinics to direct patients to purchase the medicine they needed directly from private pharmacies. Many families thus faced a harrowing choice between being driven further into poverty and sending a loved one to an early grave. For many African countries, high borrowing costs have contributed to dependence on the goodwill of foreign donors. But aid-dependent health-care systems are fundamentally fragile. We saw this during the Covid-19 pandemic, and we are seeing it now, as European countries scale back their development spending to free up space for other priorities, and the United States dismantles its entire aid apparatus, beginning with the US Agency for International Development (USAID). In Malawi, those cuts have already forced critical programmes, such as for HIV treatment and prevention, to scramble for funds. Local NGOs have been forced to lay off outreach workers, and patients with tuberculosis or HIV have gone without care. As one community health nurse in South Africa lamented, "My fear is mortality is going to be very high". Africans' health cannot depend on the generosity of others. Governments must be able to invest in stable, resilient, self-sustaining health systems. To raise funds, Senegal and Zambia are experimenting with "health taxes" on alcohol and sugary drinks. Debt-for-health swaps in countries like Seychelles have shown promise. Nigeria's diaspora health bonds could unlock billions in financing if they are matched with concessional capital and guarantees from multilateral banks. Ultimately, there is no substitute for affordable, predictable capital. That is why lowering borrowing costs must be a key priority at the G20 summit this November. This means, first, tackling structural factors such as outdated international regulations and biases in risk assessments. It also means delivering timely and meaningful debt relief. This will require innovative mechanisms, such as debt-for-health swaps, and increasing the use of pause clauses in existing loans and new debt contracts that allow for debt payment suspension when a pandemic strikes. A third priority must be to secure continued political support for multilateral health programmes -- such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria -- thereby ensuring continuity in the delivery of the relevant health services. Finally, the G20 must seek to expand African countries' access to concessional financing for health infrastructure through multilateral development banks. The G20 is the right forum for these actions. Its mandate includes addressing global challenges, promoting economic cooperation, and fostering global stability. The cost of capital is beyond any one country's capacity to address, and it is producing a destabilising global-health emergency. The upcoming G20 summit, the first to be held in Africa -- and the second with the African Union as a permanent member -- represents a particularly fitting moment for such action. Within African countries, mechanisms -- based on civil-society engagement -- for ensuring accountability for how funds are spent are also essential. But the first step must be to free up the funds. To achieve "One World for Health", all countries must be able to access the means to invest in health care. ©2025 Project Syndicate Serah Makka is Africa Executive Director at The ONE Campaign. Rosemary Mburu is Executive Director of WACI Health.
ITV News
10-07-2025
- Politics
- ITV News
Sinn Féin 'gaslighted' by waste company after repeatedly raising concerns over Warrenpoint odour
A Sinn Féin MLA has told UTV that she believes her party was 'gaslighted' by a waste company after repeatedly raising concerns about an odour in Warrenpoint. The town on the shores of Carlingford Lough has been blighted by a smell which locals say has been coming and going in the area for around three years. The smell has been attributed to a private company on the outskirts of town called ReGen. According to Warrenpoint Harbour Authority (WHA), the firm processes around 200,000 tonnes of waste every year. It also stores waste due to be sent off for processing in other countries. However, strong odours which UTV first reported on back in 2023 are back, and have ultimately led to Sinn Féin councillor Jim Brennan resigning from the authority's board. WHA issues a licence to ReGen to carry out its activities. Sinead Ennis is MLA for the area and said the decision wasn't taken lightly. 'It definitely wasn't a knee jerk reaction,' she told UTV. 'At every turn we felt we've been ignored. We've been stonewalled. We've been gaslit [sic]. So, as I said, we couldn't let that situation persist. So we removed ourselves… in the hope that that would bring focus, bring pressure, and bring people around the table to finally sort this out once and for all.' Campaigners say local festivals have been impacted by the smell emanating from the port, including the Wake the Giant festival which was held at the end of June. The Ulster Fleadh is due to take place later this month too. UTV approached the festival for a response on whether the odour would have an impact on their plans. No response has been received. Kevin Gallagher has campaigned for ReGen to take further action and for all parties to meet to discuss a way forward. 'I think this town is now at its wits end and it's had enough," he said. "It needs proper, proper action." He added: "We need all… agencies involved in one room either in the boardroom of the town hall or somewhere.' Several reasons have been given for the smell including Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and telegraph poles which were being stored at the port. WHA has confirmed to UTV that they have since been removed and won't be allowed back in the vicinity in the future. Independent councillor Jarlath Tinnelly has decided to stay on WHA's board. He told UTV: 'Well, whenever I joined the board, I promised myself that, in my time on the board that I intended to campaign on behalf of and push the concerns of the local residents to the board to make sure that they were being taken seriously. Now, I believe that there has been an awful lot of progress in the past 12 months. 'So much so that the stock levels of the waste that is being exported here from Warrenpoint are [sic] sitting less than 50% of the maximum permitted levels that there has been, up until this time last year. So we are making, I believe, progress in that regard. There's more work to do because the smell has not been totally eliminated. Mr Tinnelly also said that Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) is now being exported from the port which he believes should reduce any odour over time. He added that he believes it is better for him to voice concerns while still remaining a member of the authority's board. In a statement, the chairperson of Warrenpoint Harbour Authority, told UTV that he regrets the resignation of Jim Brennan. He described the odours as unacceptable and said the authority will be holding a meeting with ReGen. Meanwhile, the waste company told us it remains fully compliant with all industry regulations. A latest inspection from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, it said, passed and was the 13th to do so since June last year. The Environment Agency said it has received an increased number of reports but that it has no regulatory remit over ReGen's activities. A spokesperson added that a multi-agency group has been reconvened to help tackle the issues. For now, anger and a smell both linger over south Down.
The Star
08-07-2025
- Health
- The Star
Will the world's first Pandemic Agreement live up to its promise?
Covid-19 was the first pandemic this century. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were 778 million cases globally, with more than seven million deaths as of June 7 (2025). The vast majority of cases occurred in 2020 and 2021. One of the heartbreaking lessons of Covid-19 was that lives and livelihoods were destroyed by an invisible agent that had no respect for borders or anything else. According to the Lancet Global Health 2050 Commission, there is a 50% likelihood of another new pandemic causing 25 million or more deaths between now and 2050. Cognisant of the imperative to do better than during the Covid-19 pandemic, the member states of WHO agreed in December 2021 that a new legal instrument was needed to help countries prevent, prepare for and respond to future global health threats. The work to draft the Pandemic Agreement was long, arduous and divisive amidst increasing global geopolitical upheaval. What it is The Pandemic Agreement was adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) on May 20 (2025). This agreement is only the second legally-binding one that WHO has negotiated after the Framework Convention of Tobacco Control. Many of the delegates at the WHA who spoke prefaced their measured enthusiasm with caveats and cautious hopes, as well as a sense that something was better than nothing, as the Agreement was not as transformative as the majority had hoped for. The Agreement established principles, priorities and targets for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The aim is to: Build resilience to pandemics Support prevention, detection and responses to outbreaks with pandemic potential Ensure equitable access to pandemic countermeasures, and Support global coordination through a stronger and more accountable WHO. A pandemic emergency was defined as such: 'It must be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). 'A PHEIC means an extraordinary event which is determined (i) to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease; and (ii) to potentially require a coordinated international response; being of communicable disease nature; having, or at risk of having, wide demographical spread; exceeding, or is at high risk of exceeding, the capacity of health systems; causing, or is at high risk of causing, substantial social and/or economic disruption etc.; and requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action etc.' The Agreement complements other initiatives, actions and measures aimed at making the world safer from pandemics, including the International Health Regulations, and global systems and institutions working towards equitable sharing of health technologies, information and expertise. It will establish a Pathogen Access and Benefit-sharing System (PABS) to 'enable materials and genome sequences of pandemic pathogens to be shared and aims to promote equitable sharing of any resulting innovations, such as vaccines'. WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (red tie) celebrating the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement by the WHA on May 20. Money and monopolies However, the Agreement stated that manufacturers would have to share only 20% of any vaccines, therapeutics or diagnostics. Although 20% is better than nothing, no one could claim that it is equitable and just. During the Covid-19 pandemic, a few high-income countries had early and excess access to vaccines through bilateral arrangements with manufacturers. This undermined the global Covax initiative and contributed to death and illness in poor countries that were dependent on donations. The Agreement does not stop some countries from again monopolising life-saving measures at the expense of others in the next pandemic. It also does not provide for funding. It encourages states to 'develop and implement national and/or regional policies, adapted to its domestic circumstances, regarding the inclusion of provisions in publicly-funded research and development grants, contracts and other similar funding arrangements, particularly with private entities and public- private partnerships, for the development of pandemic-related health products, that promote timely and equitable access to such products, particularly for developing countries, during PHEIC, including pandemic emergencies, and regarding the publication of such provisions'. There is already a Pandemic Fund and development banks will likely have a role in funding. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism will be established to promote sustainable financing for the implementation of the Agreement. However, how it will operate together with existing financing instruments is unclear. Countries still in charge The Agreement recognises national sovereignty, i.e.: 'Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the WHO, including the Director-General of the WHO, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic law, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.' The issue of accountability is unclear in the Agreement as it states that: 'Each Party shall monitor its preparedness capacities, and periodically assess, if needed with technical support from the Secretariat of the WHO upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacities.' There are no provisions for independent monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. This means that there are no consequences for non-compliance with the Agreement. Selective adherence by WHO member state(s) can undermine the effectiveness of the Agreement. More work needed The WHA established a new body, i.e. the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG), to draft and negotiate the Annex on PABS in Article 12 of the Agreement. It will be submitted to the next WHA for adoption, after which the Agreement will be open for ratification and accession by member states of WHO. The IGWG was also directed by the WHA to initiate steps to enable the setting-up of the Coordinating Financial Mechanism for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, and the Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) to 'enhance, facilitate and work to remove barriers and ensure equitable, timely, rapid, safe and affordable access to pandemic-related health products for countries in need during PHEIC, including pandemic emergencies, and for prevention of such emergencies'. After the WHA adopted the Agreement, WHO's Director-General stated: 'The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our Member States to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement. 'The Agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. 'It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. 'It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during Covid-19.' How the guiding principle in Article 3 of the Agreement, i.e. 'full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons', would be addressed is an open question. The weak requirements on the sharing of health technologies and the vague statements on accountability means that the Agreement is unlikely to prevent a repetition of one of the primary failures in the Covid-19 pandemic, i.e. the uncontrolled acquisition and consumption of crucial resources by a few high-income countries at the expense of the rest of the world. It is unlikely that the current Agreement will ensure an equitable global response at the next pandemic. Anyone who has read it can only hope that it will be strengthened before the next pandemic arrives. While something is better than nothing, more needs to be done. Dr Milton Lum is a past president of the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Associations and the Malaysian Medical Association. For more information, email starhealth@ The views expressed do not represent that of organisations that the writer is associated with. The information provided is for educational and communication purposes only, and it should not be construed as personal medical advice. Information published in this article is not intended to replace, supplant or augment a consultation with a health professional regarding the reader's own medical care. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.
Mail & Guardian
01-07-2025
- Health
- Mail & Guardian
Are procedures in negotiations for the WHO's international public health legal instruments being violated?
The World Health Organisation must recommit to the democratic principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Reuters) According to a World Health Organisation But health freedom advocates are deeply concerned that in one or both instances, the WHO has broken its own rules for negotiating and voting for its legal instruments. As I explained However, as In the run-up to the Furthermore, the authors of the had been shown to be contradicted by the data and citations on which WHO and other agencies had relied. The authors were alluding to the WHO's contention that shortening the four-month statutory window for countries to review proposed amendments to the IHRs was justifiable on the grounds that due to 'climate change' and other drivers of zoonotic spillover, the risk of another spillover from animals to humans was very high. In other words, the WHO was using under-substantiated assumptions of an imminent 'existential threat' to justify sidestepping official procedures. Thus some health freedom advocates hold that the WHO's assumption of increased risk of pandemics relies on a weak evidence-base, demonstrated by a University of Leeds Moreover, analysis of the evidence used by WHO and others gave much longer outbreak risk profiles, highlighting inconsistencies between WHO estimates and the research estimates in their cited evidence. All this undermines the WHO's justifications for side-stepping its own procedures. Furthermore, according to th WHA in 2024], the WHO moved the Coordinating Financing Mechanism (CFM) from Article 20 of the Thus the hasty adoption of the amendments to the Furthermore, some health freedom advocates hold that the negotiations for the In early 2024, the WHO released a April 2025, which was the last day of negotiations for the Pandemic Agreement, the European Union (EU) Furthermore, According to Nevertheless, on the first day of the I am not adequately acquainted with the role of Committee A as distinct from that of the full assembly, but Article 19 of the WHO Yet while all the health freedom advocates I know agree that the The WHO has In essence, the PABS system is to be designed to facilitate the sharing of pathogens with 'pandemic potential', purportedly to enable pharmaceutical companies to develop 'vaccines' in good time while 'equitably' sharing the profits or products derived with the states that shared the pathogens with them. Yet, health freedom advocates are pointing out that since the Annex must be negotiated before the In view of the foregoing reflections, there is an urgent need for WHO to renew its commitment to the democratic principles that had set it apart from other United Nations bodies. Unlike the UN, the WHO does not have a provision of veto power for any nation, and thus is meant to uphold the doctrine of the equality of sovereign states. After all, the UN, of which the WHO is a specialised body, claims to be committed to democratic principles in line with the Reginald MJ Oduor is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Nairobi and a member of the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group and of the International Health Reform Project, as well as the co-founder of the Society of Professionals with Visual Disabilities.
