As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) announced the next phase of its Supplies Partnership to secure essential contraception and maternal health medicines for millions of women and adolescent girls over the next decade.
“The global community must act now with commitments to support women and girls”, stressed UNFPA Executive Director Dr. Natalia Kanem. “Failing to do so will have dire consequences: more unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions and more women dying from preventable causes”.
With an estimated investment of $2.5 billion by 2030, the renewed Partnership has the potential to prevent 141 million unintended pregnancies, 328,000 maternal deaths and 42 million unsafe abortions by that time.
Despite mitigation efforts, the coronavirus pandemic has slowed or even reversed many countries’ decades of progress in family planning, while pandemic-related restrictions, such as lockdowns, together with fears of contracting the virus, have led to fewer women seeking reproductive health services.
“With countries leading the charge, we must rally to improve women’s health and well-being globally, especially at this time of heightened vulnerabilities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic”, urged the UNFPA head.
Support imperative
Countries and partners around the world are making bold commitments to support the next phase of the programme, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the European Union, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom – together with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Kühne Foundation, according to UNFPA.
To date, contraceptive and maternal health services supplied by the programme have had the potential to avert 89 million unintended pregnancies, 227,000 maternal deaths, 1.4 million children’s deaths and 26.8 million unsafe abortions.
And since 2007, the UNFPA Supplies programme has mobilized more than $1.8 billion in support.
“A more inclusive and prosperous world can only be achieved by addressing the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and young people, and that’s exactly what we’re working towards in this Partnership”, said Karina Gould, Canadian Minister of International Development, in a press release.
Countries in central Asia, the southern Caucasus and the Balkans share technical expertise and resources with each other via regional hubs set up by WHO/Europe in Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and Serbia respectively. The countries in each hub share similar levels of socioeconomic development, population health profiles, and health system challenges. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these links proved vital.
“Being on hand when emergencies hit has become one of the main benefits of this structure. Experts are leading from the outset, ready to respond to actual needs and able to build on established relationships with stakeholders and partners as well as work across WHO programmes,” says Dr Dorit Nitzan, Acting Director of Emergencies, WHO/Europe.
Established in 2017, the 3 hubs cover 15 countries. In each hub, a coordinator ensures that support is available from WHO to monitor and assess emergency preparedness and, more recently, COVID-19 response capacities and needs in each country. The closeness of these coordinating teams facilitated a swift and agile response to the virus.
“We are building bridges of trust that are not visible to our eyes,” is how Dr Tasnim Atatrah, Coordinator of the Central Asian Hub, describes the work of the hubs. Alongside parallel teams in the southern Caucasus and the Balkans, her hub adapts COVID-19 technical advice from WHO to take into account local sensitivities and health system constraints.
“Before the pandemic, we worked closely with countries on strengthening their emergency preparedness core capacities in line with the International Health Regulations 2005,” she explains. “This then put us in a good position to work with countries to assess needs and capacities in relation to COVID-19, and collaborate with stakeholders and international experts to help countries better withstand the effects of the virus.”
By sharing human resources and cutting travel costs, the hub system increases efficiency. Hub teams were well placed to provide timely COVID-19 guidance, matching WHO and partners’ support to the needs of individual countries. The familiarity of the teams with country-specific health systems, ministries of health, experts’ networks, civil society organizations and United Nations country offices proved to be critical in engaging countries with the European Region’s COVID-19 response.
Mobilizing resources
At the start of the pandemic, a WHO expert assessed the equipment, resources and biosafety levels in laboratories in the 3 countries of the Southern Caucasus Hub. “The expert was able to improve COVID-19 diagnostics in line with WHO standards, through round the clock engagement with laboratory staff, baseline assessments, face-to-face and online consultations, and on-the-job training,” says Vasily Esenamanov, Coordinator of the Southern Caucasus Hub.
Bosnia and Herzegovina also received a technical expert from neighbouring Serbia, highlighting the role of the hub in encouraging intercountry solidarity and support, which Abebayehu Assefa Mengistu, Coordinator of the Balkan Hub, says “are more important than ever during a crisis, and, in this case, crucial to containing the pandemic”.
In the Central Asia Hub, Kyrgyzstan successfully presented its evidence-based preparedness and response plan to international partners via the hub platform, following an assessment by experts in emergencies. This ability to mobilize resources helped other countries gain support from regional partners, allowing them to improve surge capacity and provide equipment and training for their health workforce.
The hubs’ wealth of knowledge ensures that WHO guidelines and tools are optimized according to each country’s socioeconomic reality and needs. On-the-ground scientific assessments assist countries in developing their health systems and improving emergency preparedness, as well as promoting intensive and fit-for-purpose activities in every aspect of public health.
FILE PHOTO: The logos of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google in a combination photo. REUTERS
BRUSSELS (Reuters) -Tech giants which control access and data to their platforms could be fined up to 10% of their annual turnover for violating rules aimed at curbing their power, a person familiar with the matter said.
The proposed rules, to be announced by EU digital chief Thierry Breton and EU antitrust czar Margrethe Vestager on Tuesday, are likely to affect Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Alphabet unit Google.
The rules, known as the Digital Markets Act, set out a list of dos and don’ts for online gatekeepers to ensure a level playing field for rivals and users.
This could include requiring dominant companies to share certain kinds of data with rivals and regulators while practices such as companies favouring their own services could be outlawed.
Breton has previously said that gatekeepers can be ordered to change their practices or even be forced to break up their European businesses for repeated breaches of the rules.
The criteria for classifying which companies are gatekeepers are likely to be the number of users, either individual or business users on a pan-European level, a company’s presence in at least two business sectors and revenues, other sources have told Reuters.
The draft rules, which will need feedback from EU countries and the European Parliament, can still be modified before they are presented on Tuesday.
Bloomberg was first to report about a 10% fine for breaches.
Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; Editing by Susan Fenton
<em class="pub-author">EMCDDA,</em>
<em class="pub-local">Lisbon,</em>
<em class="pub-date"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2020-12-14T00:00:00+00:00">December 2020</span></em>
<div class="summary">
<h2 class="publications-summary">Summary</h2>
<div class="field field-name-field-summary field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items" readability="9"><div class="field-item even" readability="13">The Evidence database is a core component of the EMCDDA’s Best Practice Portal. The portal is a resource for professionals, policymakers and researchers in the drugs field and provides information on the available evidence on drug-related prevention, treatment and harm reduction, focusing on the European context. The evidence is compiled following an explicit methodological process which is described in this document.
<div class="publication-attachments pdf">
<strong>Download as PDF</strong> </div>
<div class="main-subject"><h3 class="field-label"><i class="fa fa-tag"/> Main subject: </h3><p class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/topic/best-practice">best practice</a></span></p></div>
The focus of the event was the fallbacks for EURIBOR, where working group on euro risk-free rates members will guide the audience through the recently launched public consultations on EURIBOR fallback trigger events and €STR-based EURIBOR fallback rates.
COMECE Legal Affairs Commission: children and their rights as a EU priority
The COMECE Legal Affairs Commission met on Thursday 3 December 2020 to exchange on current EU and national initiatives in the area of fundamental rights. The event took place by video conference due to the ongoing Covid-19 crisis under the chairmanship of H. E. Mgr. Theodorus C. M. Hoogenboom, Auxiliary Bishop of Utrecht.
The meeting prioritesed the situation of children in the Europea Union. In dialogue with a representative of the European Commission, the experts delegated by the EU Episcopates analysed the EU strategy for a more effective fight against child abuse, emphasising the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach.
The future strategy on the rights of the child (2021-2024) was also discussed with the European Commission. The exchange was timely, as COMECE subsequently contributed to the consultation on this topic.
The impact of the pandemic on the rights of the child and of their parents, as well as the possible expansion of the setting for the future Expert group on violence against children, were among the key points that emerged in this regard.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which entered into force in May 2018 and is a permanent priority in the fundamental rights domain, was also addressed. Concerning the Church in the Member States, the experts also shared information and legal questions on recent developments regarding the GDPR, as well as on national systems of Church funding.
In view of the upcoming Christmas period, the COMECE Commission also assessed the impact of the recently issued EU Stay Safe Strategy on religious ceremonies.
The COMECE Legal Affairs Commission will meet for its next meeting on Thursday, 25 February 2021, with a focus on EU non-discrimination policies and initiatives to counter money laundering.
Personally, I accept that the intentions behind the legislation are good. The problem is the apparently rushed and ill-considered overreach which could have broad and – one trusts, but is not quite certain – unintended consequences for freedom of belief, speech and religion.
A meeting of leaders of Victorian churches unanimously supported the intention of the bill to protect vulnerable people from coercive practices.
I emphasise that the churches do not want to be a source of harm to vulnerable people, and it is clear that, sadly, in some cases that has happened, that people have suffered psychological and spiritual damage. A meeting of leaders of Victorian churches last Wednesday unanimously supported the intention of the bill to protect vulnerable people from coercive practices.
Yet, so far as I am aware, the number of coercive conversion therapy cases historically in Victoria is tiny, certainly not enough to justify legislation of this magnitude.
The text of the legislation is troubling, interfering as it does with Christian practices of prayer, conversion, Christian formation, spiritual accompaniment, family and church life, and the ability of individuals to seek advice or counselling to make their own decisions.
Frankly, should someone actively wish to change their orientation, or to seek advice about practising celibacy, or any private matter of conscience, it is none of the government’s business.
Loading
By what right does a secular government try to determine “conversion”, a normal Christian practice – I am an adult convert to Christianity myself – or how Christians may pray? By what right does it try to restrict what people can or cannot say to each other, even if they are adults of a shared cultural or religious identity?
Take celibacy. For two millennia, the Church has advocated that people should refrain from sexual relations outside marriage. What if a young heterosexual and a young homosexual seek counselling about struggles in this area – a not uncommon scenario? Is a pastor to advise the heterosexual but remain silent to the homosexual?
If a married adult is struggling with sexuality and asks for prayer so s/he can contain sexual expression to the marriage, are people praying for them guilty of a “change or suppression practice”? What if a polyamorist is advised to stay faithful in a marriage but decides this advice has damaged him? The bill explicitly says these prohibitions are regardless of consent, or the desires of the subject.
What if a pre-pubescent child requests gender-reassignment treatment, but the parents, who know and love that child, encourage him or her to wait and see if their feelings change? Are the parents guilty of a “change or suppression practice”? That certainly seems a possible interpretation of the legislation.
Further, the definition of sexual orientation has been amended extraordinarily broadly.
Loading
What next? Church leaders are seeking a delay in taking the bill to the Upper House so proper consultation can take place – for example, on clear definitions and on articulation of harmful practices. The explanatory notes say the legislation is not intended to proscribe what can be said in a sermon or lecture, but this is not included in the bill.
Astute observers have also noted that the bill (under Section 57) requires an independent reviewer – chosen by the Attorney-General, so a political appointment – who must consider the need for a redress scheme. That raises the stakes.
The penalties under the bill are severe, including imprisonment. The government wants to suggest that not much is changing but, with the bill as it is, that is clearly untrue. How can it hurt the government to hold off a little longer, and actually consult? If the churches are sympathetic to the government’s motives, as they are, why not allay their concerns?
Barney Zwartz, religion editor of The Age from 2002 to 2013, is a senior fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity.
Barney Zwartz, a senior fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity, was religion editor of The Age from 2002 to 2013.
