Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of Countries of the South-East Asia Region: SEARO, New Delhi, 15-17 February 1999

Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of Countries of the South-East Asia Region SEARO, New Delhi, 15-17 February 1999 World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia New Delhi Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of Countries of the South-East Asia Region SEARO, New Delhi, 15-17 February 1999 World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia New Delhi April 1999 SEA/HS Meet./4 CONTENTS Page SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................1 SECTION 2 OPENING SESSION ...............................................................................................................................2 SECTION 3 BUSINESS SESSIONS.............................................................................................................................4 3.1 Review of the Actions Taken on the Outcomes of the Third Meeting of Health Secretaries and the Sixteenth Meeting of Health Ministers............................................................................................................................4 3.2 Review of Joint Government/WHO Collaborative Programme during 1998-1999 .......................................................................................................................6 3.3 TRIPS and the Health Sector in the South-East Asia Region ..................................7 3.4 Briefing on Special Projects.................................................................................................. 10 – Roll Back Malaria................................................................................................................. 10 – Polio Eradication.................................................................................................................. 12 – Tobacco Free Initiative ..................................................................................................... 15 SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 17 4.1 Review of the Actions Taken on the Outcomes of the Third Meeting of Health Secretaries and the Sixteenth Meeting of Health Ministers......................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Review of the Joint Government/WHO Collaborative Programme during 1998-1999 .......................................................................................... 17 4.3 TRIPS and the Health Sector in the South-East Asia Region ............................... 18 4.4 Briefing on Special Projects.................................................................................................. 18 – Roll Back Malaria................................................................................................................. 18 – Polio Eradication.................................................................................................................. 19 – Tobacco Free Initiative ..................................................................................................... 19 SECTION 5 CLOSING SESSION............................................................................................................................. 20 ANNEXES 1. Agenda .............................................................................................................................................................. 22 2. Opening Address by Dr Uton M. Rafei, Regional Director ...................................................... 23 3. List of Participants.......................................................................................................................................... 27 1 Section 1 INTRODUCTION HE Regional Director, WHO South-East Asia Region (SEAR), convened the fourth meeting of Health Secretaries of SEAR countries in the Regional Office for South-East Asia (SEARO), New Delhi, from 15-17 February 1999, with the following objectives: (1) To review the actions taken on the outcomes of the third meeting of Health Secretaries and the Sixteenth meeting of Health Ministers; (2) To review the Joint Government/WHO Collaborative Programmes for the biennium: 1998-1999; (3) To deliberate upon the implications of TRIPS for the health sector in the South-East Asia Region, and (4) To brief the Health Secretaries on the following special projects: – Roll Back Malaria – Polio Eradication – Tobacco Free Initiative The meeting was attended by the Deputy Minister of Health, Myanmar; the Health Secretaries from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal and Sri Lanka, and the Director/Director-General of Health Services from Bhutan, Maldives and Thailand. The meeting was inaugurated by Dr Uton Muchtar Rafei, Regional Director, WHO South-East Asia Region. T Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 2 Section 2 OPENING SESSION R Uton Muchtar Rafei, Regional Director, WHO/South-East Asia Region, welcomed the Health Secretaries and thanked them for their support at the 51st World Health Assembly. This had led to the adoption of resolution WHA 51.31, which has better financial implications for the Region and its countries, particularly the least developed ones and DPR Korea. In the context, however, of reduced allocations under the WHO Regular Budget, Dr Uton underlined the need to improve programme budget implementation at the country level, particularly the quality of programme delivery. He recalled that the Secretaries had, at their meeting in 1997, agreed that a part of the country budget, which could not be absorbed on time, should be pooled for implementation under an intercountry mechanism. The Regional Director stated that as a result of this arrangement as well as due to the sustained interest and cooperation of countries, it had been possible to achieve 100 per cent implementation of the 1996-1997 programme budget. Dr Uton said that in keeping with the stress on ‘value for money’ in the implementation of collaborative programmes, five country and seven regional programmes had been evaluated. In addition, the first meeting of the working group, established at the request of the Fifty-first session of the Regional Committee, had been held last week to study the efficiency of the WHO Regional and country offices. Training of the concerned WHO and country staff on WHO managerial process to improve programme development and management had been initiated. He further added that as it is essential to promote joint planning and management of WHO regional budget to improve its efficiency, a workshop of senior national officials and WRs and their staff would be organized in the beginning of March this year. Referring to the restructuring of WHO headquarters, the Regional Director apprised the Health Secretaries of his decision to reorganize the Regional Office. He noted that the new structure would provide coordinated technical support to Member States in the development and management of the WHO collaborative programme. He also informed that the Regional Office would also be implementing the Director-General’s projects on Tobacco Free Initiative, Roll Back Malaria and Polio Eradication, etc. The Regional Director recalled the genesis of the Meeting of Health Secretaries and recounted its broad objectives. He also referred to the agenda of the meeting. In conclusion, he expressed his appreciation to the Health Secretaries for their contribution in fostering regional solidarity and national health development. D Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 3 Professor Mya Oo, Deputy Minister of Health, Government of the Union of Myanmar, was elected as the Chairman of the meeting. Mr M.M. Reza, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Bangladesh, was elected as the Vice-Chairman. The Drafting Group consisted of Dr Abdullah Waheed, Director-General, Health Services, Maldives; Dr Wan Maung, Director-General, Department of Health, Myanmar; Dr Dadi S. Argadiredja, Chief, Bureau of Planning, Indonesia, and Dr Sangay Thinley, Director, Health Division, Bhutan. The meeting adopted the agenda and programme, as contained in documents No. SEA/HSM/Meet.4/2(Rev.1) and SEA/HSM/Meet.4/2.1(Rev.1). Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 4 Section 3 BUSINESS SESSIONS 3.1 REVIEW OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN ON THE OUTCOMES OF THE THIRD MEETING OF HEALTH SECRETARIES AND THE SIXTEENTH MEETING OF HEALTH MINISTERS The Regional Director, in his introductory remarks, observed that a review of actions taken on the recommendations of the preceding meetings of health ministers and health secretaries ensures that necessary follow-up action is taken at the regional and country levels. He highlighted, with specific examples, the usefulness of concerted follow-up action. The health secretaries were apprised that though World Health Assembly resolution 51.31 had resulted in a cut of US $16 million in respect of our Region as against the cut of US $48 million as per the Executive Board formula, the cut suffered by other WHO regions was almost the same as estimated under the Executive Board formula. Therefore, other WHO regions had expressed concern on this issue and would like to reopen it whenever possible. Accordingly, there was a need for SEAR countries to be ever vigilant, and adopt all feasible measures to protect the regional allocation. Besides, though the Region had suffered a smaller cut as a result of WHA 51.31, the total loss, allowing for inflation during the coming six years, would be significant. He therefore reiterated the need to utilize WHO budget allocations in a timely and technically sound manner. The Regional Director invited the health secretaries to suggest measures for more comprehensive reporting on the actions taken. He also invited their views on more systematic follow-up actions towards the implementation of the recommendations. Salient points of discussions ? While expressing satisfaction at the outcome in respect of the regional allocation of WHO Regular Budget at the 51st World Health Assembly, as a result of the combined efforts of Member States and SEARO, it was emphasized that continuing efforts were needed in this regard. These measures, inter alia, may include review of the process of consultation between Governments and the Regional Office in the development of the collaborative programme and the subsequent process of clearance of projects/proposals by WHO country offices and the Regional Office. The main objective was to streamline the process. Half-yearly reviews of the Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 5 managerial process of developing and implementing the joint collaborative programme, jointly by national authorities and WHO, would ensure their timeliness and efficiency. ? On the grounds of equity, satisfaction was expressed over the special dispensation to the least developed countries in WHA 51.31. ? Utilization of the budget is a long-term issue that needs to be addressed at country and regional levels. It would entail a review of the process of formulation and development of joint collaborative programmes and their implementation. At the country level, the break-up of the budget between long-term staff and technical programmes needs to be looked into. At the same time, it has to be appreciated that WHO long-term staff should not be seen as adding to administrative or overhead costs: such staff represents the real technical cooperation resource. ? The problem seemed to be that four countries in SEAR, (including Nepal), had higher budgetary allocations than China. It appeared that SEAR countries were singled out for favoured treatment by WHO. However, the real issue is that while 75% of the WHO regional budget for SEAR goes to countries and only 25% remains with the Regional Office, the corresponding figures for AFRO and other regions are about 15% and 85% respectively. ? A complex situation had been created by the decline in resources for health due to economic problems/crisis and reduced availability of external assistance. This could be met through efficient and equitable use of available resources – internal and external, and through partnership among all stakeholders. ? The statements of accounts for funds obligated in the bienniums 1992-1993 and 1994-1995 had not yet been received. The situation had resulted in critical comments from the auditors. It had also damaged our image in the Executive Board and the World Health Assembly. Hence, there was an urgent need for complete information when proposals are submitted, and to work together with Programme Managers to ensure compliance with rules, regulations and procedures. ? Satisfaction was expressed over the overall programme delivery in the Region which had improved considerably since the institution of the meeting of the health secretaries. The number of WHO projects under collaborative programmes had been reduced. An increasing number of fellowships were being awarded within the Region. Monitoring and evaluation had improved. Joint coordination committees were working in most countries. These factors, inter alia, had resulted in a full financial implementation for the 1996-1997 biennium. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 6 3.2 REVIEW OF JOINT GOVERNMENT/WHO COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME DURING 1998-1999 The Regional Director, in his introductory remarks, recalled that the health secretaries, during their last meeting, had appreciated that, inter alia, the allocation of WHO Regular Budget to the South-East Asia can be protected only if we fully and properly utilize the existing level of allocations. He noted that towards this end, the health secretaries, during their second meeting had agreed to pool a part of their country budget for implementation under the intercountry mechanism. He emphasized that there was no room for complacency regarding the implementation of the government/WHO collaborative programme during the current biennium. The Regional Director invited the health secretaries to deliberate upon measures that would lead to proper planning and timely implementation of the collaborative programme, with special attention to quality. Salient points of discussions ? While being responsive to WHO rules and regulations, as highlighted in audit reports, it was desirable to maintain a degree of flexibility which is a unique feature of WHO’s collaboration with countries. ? WHO could jointly evaluate the technical merits of proposals, which were complex and involved high budgetary allocations, with the programme managers in the field, wherever feasible. ? Fellowships and study tours did not materialize on schedule due to procedural delays in countries, WHO country offices and the Regional Office. The financial provisions for such activities, therefore, remained unutilized. ? Joint Government/WHO coordinating mechanisms play important role in the planning, implementation and monitoring of collaborative programmes. The overall management of the programme shows considerable improvement with an effective coordination mechanism in place. Issues such as submission of technically sound proposals and statement of accounts can be successfully addressed through such a mechanism. ? Development of human resources in key areas of the health system is an important contribution to countries through WHO resources. At the same time, in some countries development of human resources must be accompanied with the development of laboratories and the provision of essential drugs in rural areas in order to maximize the benefit to the poorer segments of the population. ? The intercountry programme can effectively address many important challenges, which are common to more than one country. The approaches can include training courses, structured study tours, development of networks of centres of expertise, exchange visits etc. Intercountry such activities could include diarrhoeal disease Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 7 control; disaster management; primary health care, control of vector-borne diseases, cooperation in addressing high priority cross-border issues and areas of common concern such as HIV/AIDS. A joint approach for eradication/elimination of diseases such as poliomyelitis and leprosy in India and Nepal was also feasible. ? During the bienniums: 1996-1997 and 1998-1999, the intercountry programmes mainly addressed advocacy issues. There would be a shift in focus during 2000-2001, to more action-oriented programmes to benefit several countries. ? The expected results (products) and activities to be achieved through ICP II in 2000-2001 will be prepared jointly with national officials, WHO country offices and the Regional Office staff during the workshop on the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) from 1-5 March 1999. The intercountry programme will now be the joint responsibility of countries and the Regional Office. ? At the workshop on joint programming, the expected results (products) and activities to be addressed through the intercountry mechanism (ICP II) and the country mechanism will be identified together with the estimated expenditure. Following this, the countries will formulate detailed plans of action and the Regional Office will do the same for ICP II. These detailed plans of action will be finalized during the thirty-fifth meeting of the CCPDM in April 1999. Thereafter, once the World Health Assembly approves the budget for 2000- 2001 in May 1999, the Regional Committee will consider the issue of funding for the country and ICP II plans of action at its session in September 1999. 3.3 TRIPS AND THE HEALTH SECTOR IN THE SOUTH-EAST ASIA REGION The Regional Director, in his opening remarks, highlighted that the specific agreements on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, and the general agreement on trade in services have the greatest relevance to the health sector. He underlined some of the important issues in implementing TRIPS, such as ensuring access to newly patented essential drugs for the poor, and how developing countries could be assured of the availability of new pharmaceuticals against malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, etc. To facilitate discussions, Mr B.K. Keayla, WHO Consultant, presented an overview of TRIPS and its impact on health and pharmaceuticals. The presentation covered the basic elements of the patents system, framework for implementation of TRIPS and the impact of the TRIPS agreement on pharmaceutical products and the health sector. The TRIPS agreement is a comprehensive international agreement on all intellectual property rights. It has generated challenges for the implementation of tough standards in the patent system, which secures control over markets for patentholders by preventing the use of their technologies without authorization and Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 8 economic compensation. This is a matter of serious concern for human health. The sufferings of poor people will increase due to high prices of patented medicines. The pharmaceutical drug industry in the developing and the least-developed countries would also face unequal competition due to the monopolization of the market by new products. This would be particularly so if proper provisions are not incorporated regarding the exclusion from patentability based on changes in dosage form, usage form and irrational combinations. The Preamble of the TRIPS Agreement expects all Member Countries to adopt minimum standards laid down therein. The objectives and principles envisage that Member countries can frame or amend their patent system to ensure transfer and dissemination of technology, balancing of rights and obligations, promotion of public interest in sectors of vital interest and the prevention of abuse of practices which restrain trade or transfer of technology. These safeguards should be fully used by Member countries to protect national/public interest, provided they are consistent with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. TRIPS provides for extending the scope of patentability to cover pharmaceutical products or processes as well as all other fields of technology. Protection has also to be extended to microorganisms, non-biological and microbiological processes, and an effective sui generis system has to be provided for plant varieties. These provisions, however, will be reviewed during 1999. Extending of patents to lifeforms is a critical matter for consideration and review in order to protect ordre public and morality. The patent claims would have to be examined from the point of view of newness, innovativeness and industrial application. These stipulations are within the domain of the nation states to formulate and should be carefully provided by the developing and the least-developed countries to exclude all frivolous claims from the scope of patentability. The working of the patent should be linked to the transfer of technology and not to stipulations about imports. The working of a patent in a country which grants the rights should not be treated as a non-issue. Domestic production is important both from the point of availability and price control. The patentholders would enjoy exclusive rights for making, using and selling etc. of patented products and products made by patented processes. Exclusive rights have also been extended to imports for the stated rights. The imports have also to be treated at par with domestic production in the context of patent rights. However, the provision related to the exhaustion of rights in TRIPS could be applied for parallel imports. The term of the patent is supposed to be 20 years from the date of application. Mr Keayla suggested that the period of 20 years should be restricted to 20 years product patent regime followed by 20 years of process patent regime. The patent system under TRIPS also provides for use without an authorization by the patentholder. Though the provisions under this article are not comparable to the usual provisions related to the grant of compulsory licensing to safeguard public interest, sufficient flexibility is available to provide for a strong compulsory licensing system to match the provisions strengthening the rights of patentholders. For commercial purposes, Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 9 the requirement is that an individual enterprise desirous of exploiting a patent has to make direct efforts for authorization from the rightholder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions. If such efforts are not successful within a reasonable period of time, compulsory license can be accorded by the government. Compulsory licenses can also be provided in situations of national emergency, extreme urgency, for non-commercial use, to remedy anti-competitive measures, and for government use, etc. The scope and duration of such use is, however, limited to the duration and purpose of the contingencies. These authorizations have to be non-exclusive and non-assignable. The patentholder has also to be paid adequately after taking into account the economic value of the authorization. The TRIPS Agreement provides for a transitional period of 5/10 years for developing countries and 11 years for the least-developed countries. However, this period has been negated for pharmaceuticals and agro-chemicals products. It is stipulated that countries without product patents for these products as on 1.1.1995 will have to establish means to accept product patent applications and also provide for Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for a period of five years. The EMR period would get curtailed if the product patent application is rejected or accepted before five years. If however, the obligation of the transitional period is satisfied through the application of the product patent route, it would not be necessary to grant EMR. Reviews of the TRIPS Agreement would be undertaken during 1999 and 2000. The developing and the least-developed countries could collectively take up the following issues: – Operationalization of the stipulation regarding transfer and dissemination of technologies in the substantive section on Patents in the Agreement. – Clear stipulation of compulsory licensing for commercial and other purposes. – Scope of patentability for lifeforms to be postponed if not excluded. – Dropping of EMR provisions so that the concerned countries could enjoy the stipulated transitional period for pharmaceuticals also. – Stipulations about imports to be treated at par with domestic production, (serious implications for large countries). – Working of patents to be ensured in the host countries. Salient points of discussions ? The effect of the TRIPS agreement on the import and export of drugs and pharmaceuticals, since a patent would be binding for new pharmaceutical products, was an issue of concern. It was clarified that under the exhaustion of rights provision, parallel imports would be possible from any country where the price of the concerned product is lower. As regards exports, the system of compulsory license does not extend to exports as per TRIPS provisions. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 10 ? While recognizing the implications of TRIPS for the health sector, it may be remembered that WTO is an international organization of the UN and its mandate is, among others, to improve the quality of life. In some countries, health has not been defined as a fundamental human right, though the right to property has. The benefits derived from a patent do not accrue only to its holder but also go to others such as professionals and scientists. As research on and development of drugs involve large investments, research could be compromised without generation of funds for such work. The rights of the inventor/discoverer or originator must be respected. In this context, it was noted that the TRIPS mechanism provides for a compulsory license system on payment of adequate compensation based on the economic value of the license. This compensation should take care of R & D investments by the patentholder. As the TRIPS Agreement is now a reality, it is important that best use be made of it after identifying the problems associated with its use. At present, countries are not in a position to deal with various issues. Drugs are essential commodities. They needed to be protected with patent rights. Traditional drugs may also be associated with patent rights. Countries that have signed the TRIPS Agreement may comply with it, keeping in view the safeguards available. The price difference of the same product in different countries was highlighted. It is important that, in the final analysis, public health is protected. Trade agreements may take care of this aspect. There must be self-sufficiency in the production of essential drugs and vaccines in SEAR countries. Recently, WHO/SEARO had looked into the aspect of intercountry cooperation in the production and supply of essential drugs and their raw materials among countries of this Region. The Regional Office could assist country focal points to develop appropriate strategies to protect public health. User- friendly information kits on WTO agreements could also be developed. 3.4 BRIEFING ON SPECIAL PROJECTS (1) Roll Back Malaria (2) Polio Eradication (3) Tobacco Free Initiative The above projects were considered one by one. (1) Roll back malaria Introducing the project on Roll Back Malaria (RBM), the Regional Director observed that its goal was to significantly reduce the burden of malaria through an intersectoral, multidisciplinary and interagency approach, as malaria is everybody’s concern. He stated that to achieve the objectives of RBM, political commitment at the highest level; access to quality care; sustainable partnership; mobilization of regional expertise, and intercountry synchronization of malaria control strategies were required. The Regional Director assured the health secretaries that the new structure in SEARO would assign the highest priority to RBM. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 11 For facilitating the discussions, a presentation on RBM was made by Drs Hadi M. Abednego, K.M. Rashid, and A.N.A. Abeyesundere, WHO Consultants. The need for broad-based support for RBM through partnerships and community involvement was highlighted. It was stressed that RBM required advocacy to gain support from other partners of development. The other points stressed during the presentation were: – The general objective of RBM is to significantly reduce the burden of malaria through measures adapted to local needs and by strengthening of the health sector to ensure better access to a range of effective antimalaria interventions. – RBM will be based on the current malaria efforts and the existing Global Malaria Control strategy in order to achieve the desired level of coverage in the affected population. Priority will be given to children, pregnant women and productive age groups residing in endemic high-risk areas, epidemic -prone areas and areas with multidrug resistance. – Strengthening the district health system would be essential to continue and sustain the process of malaria control once the RBM project ends. – In view of the growing threat of multi-drug resistance, countries where the most serious problems are occurring should synchronize their efforts and work jointly on a regional basis. – In order to achieve the objectives of RBM, capacity-building should be a priority at all levels of health services and a clear-cut operational time-frame should be developed by countries. Salient points of discussions ? Information with respect to the malaria situation in endemic countries of the Region was exchanged. It was realized that a substantial population was exposed to the risk of malaria with a fairly high level of morbidity. The level of mortality was also unacceptable. The malaria problem in most countries was a serious cause for concern, as the ratio of P.falciparum in malaria mortality was rising as was drug resistance. Some countries had already incorporated most of the ingredients of RBM in their malaria control programmes. ? Intersectoral coordination, as a cornerstone for the success of RBM in their malaria control programmes. ? Intersectoral coordination, as a cornerstone for the success of RBM, was stressed by all. It was noted that such coordination should be at all levels – international, national, provincial and district. It was added that construction, irrigation and other developmental projects led to the spread of malaria by creating breeding sources. Hence, it was important for the health sector to be involved in all such developmental programmes and projects right from their planning stage. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 12 ? It was noted that community participation was necessary for the success of RBM. In this context, it was felt that the specific roles of the people and their involvement should be delineated, in a contextual perspective. The importance of health education was underlined in this behalf. It was also felt that there was a need to focus on migratory labour and new settlement colonies. ? As nearly one-third of malaria cases occur at international borders, the importance of intercountry cooperation was underlined. Intercountry cooperation to meet the challenge of multidrug resistance was also stressed. In this context, the importance of regular intercountry and bi-regional meetings was underlined. The importance of implementing WHO collaborative programmes through the intercountry mechanism for RBM at the borders was also noted. In addition, it was felt that advocacy for RBM also required the use of the intercountry mechanism. ? It was felt that RBM should not become another vertical programme: it should be implemented through the PHC approach. District health systems should be appropriately strengthened, in terms of infrastructure and health personnel, in order to facilitate the success of RBM. Malaria cases should be promptly detected and treated to help break the transmission cycle. ? While the importance of impregnated bednets in malaria control strategy was realized, it was noted that it was an expensive component, and its success depended on the cooperation of the community. ? The importance of additional resource mobilization was emphasized, inter alia, through partnerships with the World Bank, ADB, donor agencies and others concerned, for the successful implementation of RBM. (2) Polio Eradication Introducing the project on polio eradication, the Regional Director observed that the wild polio virus circulation was now confined mostly to the Indian sub-continent and the sub-Sahara African region. He noted that India, Bangladesh and Nepal should be considered as an epidemiological block for implementing the end-stage strategies for polio eradication. He also felt that the situation in DPR Korea needed assessment. While progress towards polio eradication was extraordinary in India, Bangladesh and Nepal, there was a need to implement nation-wide, two-round, house-to-house, mopping-up campaigns in October/November, followed by NIDs in December/January. In order to facilitate discussions, a presentation was made by Dr J.K. Andrus. He informed that, in 1988, the World Health Assembly resolved to eradicate polio globally by the year 2000. In 1994, Member Countries of WHO/SEAR accelerated the implementation of polio eradication strategies. Thailand became the first Member Country to initiate yearly National Immunization Days (NIDs) in 1994; followed by Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and India (1995); Myanmar and Nepal (1996); and Maldives and DPR Korea (1997). Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 13 In 1996, the epidemiological block of countries consisting of India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar, and Thailand, synchronized NIDs in December 1996 and January 1997, the low season for poliovirus transmission. Pakistan, in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, and China in the Western Pacific Region, joined this effort, resulting in a total number of over 243 million children vaccinated. This represented approximately 38% of the world’s children aged under 5 years. Similarly, synchronized NIDs were repeated in 1997 and 1998 with intensified activities along the Myanmar – China border. In India, the biannual NIDs have been the largest public health campaigns ever conducted in a single country, reaching from over 79 million children in 1995 to 134 million children in 1998. It was pointed out that an active Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) surveillance relies on establishing a well-organized facility-based network of reporting units dispersed throughout the country. Epidemiologic and virologic information is collected from each reported AFP case. Virologic support is provided by a network of 16 WHO-accredited laboratories in the Region that conduct poliovirus isolation from stool specimens collected from AFP cases. The results of clinical follow-up and virus isolation studies are used to classify AFP cases as polio or non-polio. AFP surveillance is evaluated by two key performance indicators: (1) the sensitivity of AFP reporting (target: non-polio AFP rate of >1.0 case per 100000 children aged <15 years); and (2) the completeness of specimen collection (i.e. two adequate stool specimens from >80% of persons with AFP). Since the early 1990s, Sri Lanka has consistently reported an annualized non- polio AFP rate of >1.0. A non-polio AFP > 1.0 has been achieved in Indonesia (1997), India (1998), and Thailand (1998). In 1998, the percentage of AFP cases with two adequate stool specimens collected for virologic culture within 14 days of paralysis onset reached 60% in India, 70% in Myanmar, and 78% in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Bhutan, Maldives, and Sri Lanka have had no wild poliovirus isolates for more than five years. Of concern is the less rapid development of AFP surveillance in DPR Korea, Nepal, and Bangladesh. In 1998, DPR Korea reported no cases of AFP compared to three cases in 1997. The non-polio AFP rate in Nepal was 0.30 in 1998 compared to 0.26 in 1997; in Bangladesh it was 0.26 in 1998 compared to 0.14 in 1997. In 1998, wild poliovirus types 1 and 3 were isolated only in Bangladesh and India. In 1997, no wild poliovirus type 3 was isolated in Bangladesh, suggesting that improvements in surveillance led to its detection in 1998. Wild poliovirus type 2 was last isolated in SEAR in four contiguous districts in Uttar Pradesh, India, in September 1998; these same districts had been found infected in 1997. Despite improved surveillance, wild poliovirus was last isolated in Sri Lanka (1993); Indonesia (1995); Myanmar (1996); and in Thailand (1997). SEAR has over 25% of the world’s population and includes the largest polio- endemic country (India); therefore, progress in SEAR is critical for the success of the global polio eradication initiative. In summary, Indonesia, Myanmar, and Thailand appear to have interrupted the transmission and join other polio-free countries in the Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 14 Region – Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka. India has made substantial progress in surveillance, but continues to have widespread circulation of polio viruses type 1 and 3 with focal circulation of type 2. Bangladesh and Nepal are progressing less rapidly; data is lacking regarding the progress in DPR Korea. The global decline in incidence of the polio underscores that the existing technology and recommended strategies are sufficient to eradicate polio in the remaining polio- endemic countries. In these countries, large annual birth cohorts with low immunization coverage, and crowded urban slums exist. These conditions prevail in Bangladesh and India, and facilitate the resurgence of polio between the rounds of national immunization days (NIDs). Despite high NID coverage in India, 10% of the missed target population each year represents approximately 13 million children, often residing in areas of low coverage and crowded conditions. Reaching zero polio cases in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal by the end of the year 2000 will require: improving the quality of NIDs by strengthening supervision; and conducting house-to-house mopping-up immunization campaigns in areas with persistent transmission. Salient points of discussions ? It was recognized that substantial progress towards polio eradication had been made in South-East Asia, and that the programme was aptly positioned to implement the end-stage strategies which would allow countries to reach the target of polio eradication on time. ? The regular programme needs to be strengthened while polio is eradicated. Indeed, this is one of the basic polio eradication strategies. One example of this activity is the formation of a state-level task force of partner agencies in Bihar (India) to assist the government with routine immunization. ? Nepal is committed to the mopping-up strategy. However, there was concern about Nepal’s ability to synchronize mopping-up activities with India this autumn. Greater interaction between the two countries was required to facilitate mopping-up campaigns in Nepal. ? NIDs in Bangladesh have consistently achieved high-coverage levels. Mopping-up campaigns have been conducted. The need for a border meeting was expressed. To that end, India will be holding a border meeting on 19 February 1999. Bangladesh also recognized the need to strengthen surveillance. ? The need to improve the quality of NIDs, to add mopping-up campaigns, and to use polio eradication to strengthen routine immunization, as well as infrastructure, were emphasized. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 15 (3) Tobacco Free Initiative Introducing the project on Tobacco Free Initiative, (TFI), the Regional Director observed that the impact of tobacco on health has been on the global agenda since the 1970s when the hazards of tobacco were first identified. Since then, the World Health Assembly had adopted 16 resolutions on tobacco control. He highlighted the rising trend of smoking in the Western Pacific and South-East Asia regions. He underlined the Director-General’s Tobacco Free Initiative and its focus on protecting the vulnerable groups. He noted that a Regional Policy Framework and a Five-Year Plan of Action had been developed to support national efforts for developing tobacco-free initiatives. He also noted that the WHO Executive Board, at its last meeting, had resolved to develop an International Framework Convention. He stressed the need to build on the progress made so far in controlling tobacco use in the Region. To facilitate discussions, a presentation was made by Ms Martha R. Osei highlighting the critical basis for the Tobacco Free Initiative. It was pointed out that despite various resolutions by the World Health Assembly on tobacco control, the current and projected public health impact is and will continue to be tremendous. The current 3.5 million tobacco-related deaths were expected to increase to 10 million by 2030, with seven million of these in developing countries. By the same time, 75% of the world’s estimated 1.6 billion smokers would be living in developing countries. It has now been established that tobacco is bad economics. Studies on the economic implications of tobacco production and use in selected countries clearly demonstrate a net economic loss to tobacco producing countries. Coupled with this is the danger of environmental degradation through deforestation and fertilizer use. Also, there exist evidence-proven policies and strategies that work – yet, these are not adequately utilized due to lack of resources especially among developing countries. The long-term mission of TFI, therefore, was to reduce the prevalence and consumption of tobacco use in all countries and among all groups thereby reducing the burden of diseases caused by tobacco. In order to achieve this, the goals of the Initiative were to galvanize global political support, build new and strengthen the existing partnerships for action, accelerate national, regional and global strategies and mobilize resources to support the required actions. A joint WHO/UNICEF children-targeted project, launched in 10 countries including Sri Lanka, was especially referred to. Also the process of institutionalizing training in tobacco control, creating tobacco free films, as well as developing a WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control were highlighted as some of the focal activities under TFI. Particular attention was drawn to World Health Assembly Resolution WHA49.17, which requested the Director-General in 1996 to initiate the development of a Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. At its recent meeting, the Executive Board adopted a pathbreaking resolution (EB103.R11) urging Member Countries to participate in the process of developing the Framework Convention. The Resolution also set the agenda for the negotiation of the Framework and the relevant protocols. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 16 The relevance of TFI to the South-East Asia Region was underscored. Factors such as extensive availability of a wide variety of tobacco products, the increasing trends of tobacco use across all sections, the emergence of tobacco-related noncommunicable diseases, and its impact on women’s health justified the intensification of tobacco control under TFI. The lack of awareness among the general public with respect to hazards of tobacco and the impact of tobacco use on development programmes were also highlighted. It was noted that TFI in the Region would need to focus on three primary target groups; children/adolescents; women, and the poor. The goal of the Initiative would be to reduce tobacco consumption among these groups, with a fourfold objective – to mobilize political commitment for comprehensive tobacco control policies and strategies; to increase awareness and foster education; to improve access to harm- reduction programmes and services, and to build a coalition/network in support of tobacco control. The broad actions to be undertaken to protect the health of vulnerable groups were outlined, and health secretaries requested to facilitate the implementation of existing control laws and regulations, the adoption of new and effective fiscal and legislative policies, the development of national comprehensive policies and strategies, and the integration of tobacco control activities into PHC programmes. Health Secretaries were invited to fully participate in the Framework Convention development process in order to ensure the reflection of the Region’s needs and concerns. Their strong support for the celebration of the World No-Tobacco Day and the launch of the South-East Asia Anti-Tobacco Flame was also sought. Salient points of discussion ? Sri Lanka was enacting legislation that would support the recommendations of the Presidential Task Force to ban tobacco advertisements in the electronic media as well as smoking in public places and in public transport. The implementation of TFI and the adoption of the Framework Convention would strengthen the efforts of Sri Lanka in this area. ? Nepal underscored the threat of tobacco and alcohol to the health of its people. The need for comprehensive national control policies to impact on tobacco use was recognized. Already, the Government had banned the advertisement of tobacco and alcohol on the electronic media and had indicated its willingness to double the taxes on tobacco products in the next fiscal year. These decisions would make a significant impact on tobacco consumption in the country. However, some immediate problems needed urgent attention. Fifty per cent of the media revenue was generated from advertisements on tobacco and alcohol. The recent ban entails replacing the source of revenue to avert an interruption in media services to the public. While 20% of the special levy on tobacco is being used for this purpose now, new ways needed to be found to sustain this action. Support from WHO was requested for in this regard. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 17 Section 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 REVIEW OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN ON THE OUTCOMES OF THE THIRD MEETING OF HEALTH SECRETARIES AND THE SIXTEENTH MEETING OF HEALTH MINISTERS ? The existing format of reporting the actions taken on the recommendations of the preceding meetings of Health Ministers and Health Secretaries is in order and should be continued. ? There should be coordination with other UN agencies and development partners in order to mobilize additional external assistance for health development. This should be based on a partnership approach. ? WHO/SEARO should continue to monitor the developments relating to regional allocation of the WHO Regular Budget and share the information with Member Countries. 4.2 REVIEW OF THE JOINT GOVERNMENT/WHO COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME DURING 1998-1999 ? WHO/SEARO and country offices should provide adequate technical guidance quickly regarding the quality of proposals. Wherever feasible, they should discuss such proposals with project managers in the field. ? There is an urgent need for expeditious processing of programme activities. In order to achieve this, providing greater decision-making powers to WHO country offices and SEARO may be considered while reform of the WHO structure is implemented. ? WHO should effectively monitor the implementation of the joint government/WHO collaborative programmes. Feedback should be provided directly to higher decision- making levels in the Ministries of Health. ? The intercountry programmes should be prepared jointly in a transparent manner, with definite terms of reference (objectives, results and activities). However, it should not involve any additional administrative cost for the Regional Office, nor diversion of benefits from the countries. The Regional Committee should not be asked to Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 18 finance/fund ICP in the absence of such well-developed proposals/programmes in September 1999. ? While ensuring continuing flexibility of the WHO budget, which is its strength, there is a need to adhere to the prescribed rules, regulations and procedures, as also properly account for the observations made by the auditors – internal and external. ? The Regional Office should obligate funds for all proposals, after thorough discussions with the countries as to their technical soundness, by 31 March 1999.This would ensure that the activities can be completed and funds liquidated by 31 December 1999. 4.3 TRIPS AND THE HEALTH SECTOR IN THE SOUTH-EAST ASIA REGION ? The Ministries of Health of Member Countries should collaborate with concerned authorities in other ministries in the implementation of the WTO agreements. Revision or formulation of national patent laws and other related regulations may be in line with the provisions of the transition period and other substantive provisions in Section 5 of the TRIPS Agreement. Safeguards should be provided, particularly in regard to the health sector. ? The Ministry of Health should establish a focal point or a working group to deal with matters relating to WTO agreements, including the TRIPS Agreement. ? Appropriate WHO/SEARO meetings should include topics on TRIPS and other agreements of WTO so as to allow Member Countries to interact and exchange experiences and information. A special intercountry consultation on the subject may be organized by SEARO, preferably before the Fifty-second World Health Assembly, in order that Member Countries are well informed about it. ? WHO/SEARO should assist Member Countries in the implementation of TRIPS and other WTO agreements pertaining to the health sector. 4.4 BRIEFING ON SPECIAL PROJECTS (1) Roll Back Malaria ? All Member Countries should adopt the Roll Back Malaria initiative as a priority in their health agenda. Appropriate advocacy material should be developed to secure governmental support and people’s participation. ? Roll Back Malaria should focus on mobilizing both internal and external resources through networking. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 19 ? Roll Back Malaria should undertake strong advocacy for the development of a system to manage intersectoral collaboration and to sustain partnerships at all levels, with effective involvement of the community. ? Roll Back Malaria at the country level should aim at strengthening the district health system to ensure access to quality care and effective anti-malaria measures to high-risk groups. ? Member Countries should work jointly to solve multidrug-resistant malaria and other aspects of the problem at the global, regional and national levels. (2) Polio Eradication ? In order to attain the global target, Bangladesh, India and Nepal should conduct two rounds of nationwide, house-to-house, mopping-up campaigns immediately before the next NIDs in December 1999 and January 2000. ? Meanwhile, states/districts in these three countries should immediately accelerate the implementation of mopping-up campaigns. Adequate supplies of vaccine should be ensured for this purpose. ? The polio situation in DPR Korea should be defined for taking appropriate action. ? In the remaining SEAR countries, progress needs to be sustained for achieving certification of polio eradication. (3) Tobacco Free Initiative ? Member countries should develop comprehensive national tobacco policies and strategies to protect the vulnerable groups from the hazards of tobacco. ? Member countries should implement and review the existing fiscal policies and legislative measures to enhance the implementation of the Tobacco Free Initiative. ? Member countries should develop and implement new and effective strategies such as raising the real price of tobacco; totally banning all forms of advertisement, sponsorship and promotion; and enforcing a comprehensive ban on smoking in all enclosed public places. ? WHO and Member Countries should ensure dedicated and sustained funding for health promotion interventions. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 20 Section 5 CLOSING SESSION HE health secretaries thanked the Regional Director, Dr Uton Muchtar Rafei, for the excellently organized meeting and for the warm hospitality. They expressed satisfaction at the successful conclusion of the meeting and congratulated the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman for conducting it with wisdom and understanding. They also appreciated the quality of background papers and the presentations made during the meeting. It was felt that organizing this annual meeting February was timely. It was suggested that a session may be set aside for informal exchange of views and experiences on different health issues in SEAR countries. The health secretaries noted that the follow-up actions regarding the implementation of recommendations made by them during this meeting should be initiated in right earnest by all concerned. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, regretted the Government’s inability to host this meeting as originally planned. While appreciating for the Regional Director’s initiative for organizing this meeting at such a short notice in SEARO, he offered to host the Fifth Meeting of the Health Secretaries in India. This offer was accepted by acclamation. The delegates from Nepal and Thailand also expressed their desire to host the meetings of the health secretaries in the near future. In his concluding remarks, the Regional Director, Dr Uton Muchtar Rafei, stated that he was touched by the kind remarks and sentiments expressed by the distinguished health secretaries. He expressed his happiness at the success of the Fourth Meeting, which had fully achieved its objectives. He congratulated the health secretaries for the success of the meeting and their valuable contributions. He placed on record his appreciation for the contribution of Professor Mya Oo who chaired the meeting with such wisdom. He added that the contribution of Mr M.M. Reza was also equally laudable. Dr Uton thanked the Consultants – Mr B.K. Keayla, Dr Hadi M. Abednego, Dr M. Rashid and Dr A.N.A. Abeysundara, for their efforts. The Regional Director observed that serious thought should be paid to the implications of TRIPS for the health sector and appropriate and timely action taken. He also urged that follow-up actions on the recommendations relating to roll back malaria, polio eradication and tobacco free initiative should commence immediately. At the same time, the managerial process for more effective implementation of the WHO collaborative programme should be strengthened. T Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 21 Professor Mya Oo, Chairman, said that the deliberations had been very useful, and that their outcome will reinforce the joint efforts in improving programme implementation in countries of the Region. He noted that the implications of implementing TRIPS will provide useful guidance to countries. He said that the briefings on special projects were very useful and timely. He also commended the concise background papers. He observed that this meeting will lead to enhanced collective self- reliance in health development in SEAR countries besides fostering regional solidarity. In conclusion, on behalf of all the health secretaries, he expressed special appreciation to Dr Uton for inviting all of them to this important meeting. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 22 Annex 1 AGENDA 1. Opening Session 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Review of the Actions Taken on the Outcomes of the Third Meeting of Health Secretaries and Sixteenth Meeting of the Health Ministers 4. Review of Joint Government/WHO Collaborative Programme during 1998-1999 5. TRIPS and the Health Sector in the South-East Asia Region 6. Briefing on Special Projects: – Roll Back Malaria – Polio Eradication – Tobacco Free Initiative 7. Conclusions and Recommendations 8. Closing Session Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 23 Annex 2 OPENING ADDRESS BY DR UTON M. RAFEI, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, WHO SOUTH-EAST ASIA REGION AT THE FOURTH MEETING OF HEALTH SECRETARIES OF THE COUNTRIES OF WHO SOUTH-EAST ASIA REGION SEARO, NEW DELHI, 15-17 February 1999 Distinguished Participants Dear Colleagues Ladies and Gentlemen I am very happy to extend a warm welcome to all of you at this Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the countries of our Region. I am deeply appreciative that the Health Secretaries are here despite their heavy schedules and commitments at home. As the distinguished Health Secretaries may be aware, the Health Ministers at their thirteenth meeting in 1995 recommended that a meeting of the Health Secretaries be organized. They felt that this forum would provide a direct interface between the meetings of Health Ministers and Governing Bodies of WHO and the highest functionaries in the national Ministries of Health. Besides, it would promote greater regional understanding, co-operation and solidarity through practical strategies. These meetings have provided us a forum for exchanging views and experience regarding health and health-related matters in our countries and give practical shape to the policies emanating from the governing bodies of WHO. Inter- country partnership to address common health problems, particularly at the borders, has been strengthened. Distinguished participants, I wish to express my grateful thanks for your whole- hearted support, during the 51st World Health Assembly in May 1998. As you are aware, these combined efforts led to the adoption of resolution WHA51.31. This resolution, inter alia, stated that the Executive Board-recommended model for allocation of WHO Regular Budget to the regions should be applied in a flexible manner to minimise adverse effects on countries, whose budgetary allocations will be reduced. It also recommended that the formula be implemented gradually so that the reduction for any Region does not exceed 3 per cent per year and is spread over a period of three bienniums. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 24 The major implication of this resolution for our Region, I am glad to say, is that the estimated total cuts for the three bienniums (beginning 2000-2001), would be about US$10.9 million, as against US$48 million estimated earlier. Further, the least developed countries in our Region, namely, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Myanmar and Nepal, as well as DPR Korea, which is a country in greatest need, would not have to bear any decrease in their budget over the 1998-1999 level. In the context of reduced allocations under the WHO Regular Budget, it is imperative that programme budget implementation at the country level is improved. It is worthwhile recalling here the consensus arrived at your second meeting in Bali in 1997. With a view to accelerating the implementation of country programmes, you had agreed at this meeting that a part of the country budget which could not be absorbed on time should be pooled for implementation under an inter-country mechanism in the spirit of regional co-operation and solidarity instead of being surrendered to Headquarters. As a result of your agreement at Bali, as well as your sustained interest and co-operation, we were able to achieve full 100 per cent implementation of the 1996-1997 Programme Budget. I am sure the distinguished Health Secretaries will continue their personal efforts to further improve implementation of the 1998-1999 Programme Budget both in qualitative and financial terms. We must achieve full implementation during the current biennium as well. While on the subject of improving the efficiency of programme budget implementation, it would be appropriate to refer to some findings and recommendations of the internal and external auditors. During their visit to some country offices in 1997, in addition to financial audit, the auditors paid careful attention to the technical quality of programme delivery. Some of the concerns highlighted by them relating to programme implementation have added a new dimension to the issue of programme management. These need to be addressed urgently. The distinguished participants will recall that the Sub-committee on Programme Budget of the 51st Regional Committee had requested me to establish a working group to study the efficiency of the WHO Regional Office and country offices. The first meeting of this Working Group was convened in the Regional Office last week. During its deliberations, the Working Group examined its terms of reference and decided upon the protocol for undertaking the study and the method of its work. The report of the Working Group will be submitted to the Consultative Committee for Programme Development and Management (CCPDM) in September this year. As the Health Secretaries are aware, the governing bodies of WHO of late have stressed “value for money” in the implementation of WHO collaborative programmes in the countries. They have directed that evaluation of WHO programmes be strengthened and systematised. I am glad to state that at my initiative, evaluation of five country programmes and seven regional programmes was undertaken in 1997 and 1998. Some of the issues emanating from these evaluation exercises, inter alia, are: joint planning and management should result in greater relevance and complementarity between national health priorities and WHO priorities; there is need for further improvement in Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 25 the quality of planning and management of WHO collaborative programmes; and the functioning of the joint Government-WHO co-ordinating mechanism needs a closer attention. While discussing the issues, the CCPDM at its meeting in September 1998 recommended that attention should be paid to training of concerned WHO and country staff on WHO managerial process to improve programme development and management. I am happy to inform the distinguished Health Secretaries that the Regional Office, in collaboration with WHO Headquarters, has already conducted such a training course for the Regional Office staff. It will be extended to the country level also in due course. Distinguished participants, it is essential to promote joint planning and management of WHO’s regional budget to ensure its efficiency and effectiveness. I am, therefore, organising a Workshop on Joint Programming Initiative for Implementation of Programme Budget 2000-2001 at the Regional Office from 1 to 5 March 1999. Senior national officials at decision-making levels, along with the WHO Representatives and selected WHO country staff, will attend this workshop. I do hope that this exercise will help the concerned national officials and WHO country staff and the WHO Regional Office staff to agree on the expected results (products) and activities for inclusion in the detailed plans of action for implementation of the 2000-2001 Programme Budget. As you are all aware, the Director-General, Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, has initiated action on streamlining the functioning of the Organization. As such, she has restructured the WHO Headquarters in Geneva. In line with this reform process, I have decided to reorganize the structure of the Regional Office. The main purpose of this restructuring is not merely to ensure effective functioning of the Regional Office. It is, above all, to provide to Member States coherent and co-ordinated technical support in the development and management of WHO’s collaborative programmes. In her reform process, Dr Brundtland is focusing on certain areas such as Tobacco Free Initiative, Roll Back Malaria, Polio Eradication, Health Sector Development and Evidence based Policy Formulation. We in the Regional Office will also be implementing these special projects as part of the global exercise. During the course of this meeting, the actions taken on the outcomes of your third meeting and the sixteenth meeting of the Health Ministers held last year will be reviewed. We will also review the implementation of WHO’s collaborative programmes in 1998-1999 to help identify the problems and constraints encountered at the regional and country levels in ensuring optimal use of WHO’s scarce resources. During this meeting, we will also discuss Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Health Sector in the South-East Asia Region. As the TRIPS Agreement may have the greatest impact on the pharmaceutical sector, it will be most appropriate for the Health Secretaries to review and discuss some of the more important aspects of the TRIPS Agreement and its implications to the countries. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 26 We have also included in the agenda briefing on the projects initiated by the Director-General which, as I mentioned earlier, the Regional Office is implementing as part of the global exercise. These are Roll Back Malaria; Polio Eradication and the Tobacco Free Initiative. Distinguished participants, I deeply appreciate your significant and continuing contributions in fostering regional solidarity and in accelerating health development in your respective countries. As we have seen, meetings of the Health Secretaries have proved to be most useful. They have contributed, in large measure, to arrive at well planned strategies to address issues of common concern. These include protecting the regional budget allocation and synchronizing national immunization days. Intercountry cooperation can be further strengthened to mitigate the impact on health of the economic crisis facing most countries in the Region. I am sure that this meeting would further strengthen our efforts in these directions. Before concluding, I would like to thank once again the Health Secretaries for attending this meeting. I am sure your deliberations would be productive, and that your stay in New Delhi will be pleasant and comfortable. Thank you. Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 27 Annex 3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Bangladesh Mr M.M. Reza Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Dhaka Dr A.S.M. Moshiur Rahman Director (Planning and Research) and Line Director (Environmental & Occupational Health including arsenic) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Dhaka Bhutan Dr Sangay Thinley Director, Health Division Royal Government of Bhutan Thimphu India Mr Y.N. Chaturvedi Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi Ms K. Sujatha Rao Joint Secretary Department of Health Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India, New Delhi Indonesia Dr Endarto Sutarto, SKM Secretary-General Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta Dr Dadi S. Argadiredja Chief of the Bureau of Planning Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia Jakarta Maldives Dr Abdullah Waheed Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health Republic of Maldives Male Myanmar H.E. Professor Mya Oo Deputy Minister for Health Department of Health Government of the Union of Myanmar Yangon Dr Wan Maung Director General Department of Health Government of the Union of Myanmar Yangon Nepal Mr Bhoj Raj Pokhrel Secretary Ministry of Health His Majesty’s Government of Nepal Kathmandu Dr S.P. Bhattarai Chief, Policy, Planning Foreign Aid & Monitoring Division Ministry of Health His Majesty’s Government of Nepal Kathmandu Report of the Fourth Meeting of Health Secretaries of the South-East Asia Region 28 Sri Lanka Mr C. Abeygunawardana Secretary Ministry of Health and Indigenous Medicine Government of Sri Lanka, Colombo Thailand Dr Somsong Rugpoa Chief, Health Technical Office Office of the Permanent Secretary for Public Health Ministry of Public Health Nonthaburi Miss Vimolraj Khaekom Director International Health Division Ministry of Public Health Nonthaburi WHO Secretariat Dr Uton Muchtar Rafei, Regional Director Dr Samlee Plianbangchang, Director, Programme Management Mr R. Spina Helmholz, Director, Administration and Finance Dr U Kan Tun, WHO Representative to Bhutan Dr Ei Kubota, WHO Representative to Maldives Dr P. Abeykoon, Ag. WHO Representative to India/Ag. HSD Dr N.T. Cooray, Planning Officer Dr Kin Shein, Regional Adviser, Essential Drugs and Vaccines Mr B.S. Lamba, Health-for-All Officer Mr J.J. Kobza, Ag. Budget and Finance Officer Dr J.K. Andrus, Regional Adviser, Polio Ms Martha R. Osei, Regional Adviser, Health Promotion and Education Dr Hadi M. Abednego, Short-term Consultant Dr K.M. Rashid, Short-term Consultant Dr A.N.A. Abeyesundere, Short-term Consultant Mr B.K. Keayla, Short-term Consultant Mr S.K. Varma, Administrative Officer to the Regional Director Mr S. Vedanarayanan, Administrative Officer to Director, Programme Management Mrs Deepika Nag, Senior Administrative Secretary, HFAO Unit WHO/SEARO Resource Persons Dr Z Jadamba, Director, Health Promotion and Protection Dr U. Than Sein, Director, Health Policy and Management Dr Vijay Kumar, Director, Integrated Control of Diseases Dr Rita Thapa, Director, Family Health and Research Dr A.S. Yoosuf, Chief, Environmental Health Dr I.S. Mochny, Ag. Chief, Expanded Programme on Immunization 1