Day 3

Reflecting on the 63^rd UN DPI-NGO Conference, it was a mixed bag. There is a common belief that we must remain positive about our experiences, to the extent that it makes us uncomfortable to criticise that which needs critique. Regardless, I shall give my honest thoughts on the conference and its proceedings, and a brief justification on why this is important.

There are three main reasons why a productive conference was vital. The first is that we must remember that while we sat in the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, children and mothers continued to die of preventable causes in the world outside. So any diversion of the attention of the world’s NGO leadership must be for a good reason. The second is that it is extremely rare for such a diverse and comprehensive range of NGOs to come together for the express purpose of idea sharing and reflection, collaboration and co-ordination. The potential was indeed immense. We therefore must make maximal use of our time together to secure the future of our world through successful pursuit of the MDGs. The third is the many youth who were present at the conference. Youth will be the ones who lead the MDG effort into our changing world, and we hoped to experience an inspirational and informative conference, and to gain a glimpse into the world and NGO community they will inherit.

However, I was both dismayed and frustrated at the lack of direction, the lack of co-operative spirit, and the subsequent lack of forward movement and learning in the majority of the plenary roundtable discussions. Many delegates distracted the conference with questions and comments that showed a disregard of the topics at hand, the dire nature of the problem we are trying to address, and an understanding of where their contribution sat within the larger picture of global health efforts as a whole. To ask a roundtable of world leaders in the MDG campaign to comment on whether the conference should be held with Esperanto as the official language is inappropriate. To ask off-topic pre-drafted questions merely to practice public speaking or to assert your NGO’s presence at the conference is inappropriate. To have speakers misunderstand the few questions that were on topic due to lack of interpreters was farcical.

This was a conference between the largest and most active NGOs in the field of global health, addressing needs such as the 1 in 4 people in the world living with less than $1.25 a day, the dire state of maternal health, the lack of universal access to primary schooling, HIV/AIDs, TB, and Malaria. It was great that there were so many new NGO’s, youth, and others less experienced in global health at the conference.  However, it is important we let the more experienced NGOs/WHO/UN have productive discussion for the benefit for all. Pushing of individual agendas only serves to undermine meaningful discussion on the relevant topics and stagnate progress on the overall picture.

These frustrations were shared by many delegates who felt discussion had been hijacked (and said so openly to the conference). I couldn’t help feeling that if this is the state of world affairs, it seems our generation has a lot to fix.

It should, however, be recognised that perhaps it was a unique set of circumstances which caused a less productive UN DPI-NGO conference than is usual. The uncertain political situation in Australia post-election prevented a number of high-profile UN officials and Australian politicians from attending. This undoubtedly led to a lack of clear leadership and vision, and a lesser sense of urgency and importance that productive discussion need take place.

So did I regret attending the conference? No. There were undoubtedly some exceptional delegates present, and the conversations which resulted (on topics from the mundane to philosophical, from policy issues ranging from Indigenous health and Access to Essential Medicines to vertical versus horizontal aid programmes) was undoubtedly of great benefit to the delegates personally, and therefore also to the people their organisations help. The time allowed for networking was certainly a useful insight into the breadth of global health activities, from the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, to the work of the Burnet Institute based in Melbourne. The growing recognition that addressing non-communicable diseases and climate change is fundamental to achieving the MDGs is a positive step. The consistent advocacy for strengthening health systems over running vertical aid programs focussed on specific diseases was great to see. The observation that “everyone wants to co-ordinate, but no one wants to be co-ordinated” is a poignant indictment and call for action. If the plenaries reached that level of discussion, it would be a hugely productive conference indeed!

I suppose the point made here is that good process is important to good outcome. Such a large gathering of delegates is most productive when there is a clarity of purpose, and strong leadership to steer discussion and ensure we stay on task. Should I be so negative? I don’t think this message was negative. It was an honest evaluation of the impressions I had of my first ever UN-level conference. As was emphasised at the Nossal Global Health Forum, evaluation is a crucial aspect of running aid. The appropriate response to a fear of donors withdrawing support due to deficiencies identified by evaluation of aid programmes (or, similarly, voter support for government initiatives) is not to neglect critique. It is to educate donors that evaluation is a crucial aspect of improving evidence-based best practice. Indeed, improvement, not the outcome per se, should be the measure of success.

We should remember this in the context that achieving the MDGs is not just necessary, but possible.