News analysis:A world apart(3)
Jones is quick to point out that the GAP Group will not take away responsibilities from other industry bodies such as national trade associations. In fact, she says, the GAP Group’s goal is to support national bodies in their liaison with individual health ministries.
Speaking to the drinks business on the eve of the World Health Assembly, which took place in Geneva from May 14-18, Jones expressed a hope that sufficient consensus would be reached at the meeting to give an indication of what direction the debate will move in the coming year. But she recognised that “it’s difficult to predict the dynamic of 193 countries”.
In the event, despite discussions taking place throughout the week-long assembly, and drafting groups “working until the eleventh hour”, no agreed-upon draft resolution was forthcoming. While frustrating, this outcome was always likely given the very different positions that various member states are coming from. The most notable division in Geneva came between the Swedish and Cuban delegations, which took very different positions leading the debate.
Given the Nordic tradition, it will come as little surprise to hear that Sweden stepped forward as one of the nations keen on a comprehensive and strict set of rules to govern the trade. Talking to local media after the assembly, Swedish Social Department spokeswoman Karin Nilsson-Kelly said, “We tried to compromise with the countries that protested.
But Cuba wouldn’t move an inch, they always came up with new objections.”
Cuba’s stance against restrictions was largely inspired by the importance of revenue from rum exports. Speaking on behalf of the Cuban Foreign Ministry, Oscar Léon Gonzalez expressed the sentiment that alcohol misuse is primarily an issue for first world nations; the developing world has more pressing health priorities. “Many people can’t understand why Sweden is pushing the alcohol question so hard when people are dying of Aids, tuberculosis and malaria in their countries.” With such diametrically opposed – and seemingly intractable – viewpoints, it’s easy to see why it is likely to take a significant time and plenty of diplomacy to reach a resolution. The fact that all discussions must be translated into six languages only slows down the process further.
Time to actIn terms of likely outcomes, it is probable that that WHO will ultimately take one of two paths: either a one-size-fits-all resolution, or an advisory position comprising a series of specifically targeted measures. The first of these would be similar to the FCTC, and would represent bad news for industry because many believe the issue should be addressed on a regional, culturally sensitive basis to achieve meaningful results. The latter, which has the support of GAP Group, acknowledges that the issues are not the same everywhere, so aims to offer advice and guidance on tackling the problem on a country by country basis – this would be similar to the approach that the WHO is currently taking with regard to diet and obesity.
“There’s a huge diversity of the issues that member states are keen to stress, representing the diversity of drinking patterns around the world,” Jones explained after the Assembly had concluded without resolution. Such a situation surely indicates that the most enlightened outcome would be a resolution that advises and assists each nation to deal with its specific problems, rather than a catch-all convention that may lack relevance for many countries.
It seems safe to assume that this decision-making process will run and run, and a coherent global policy on problem drinking will not emerge for some time. However the 2007 World Health Assembly catapulted the subject of alcohol misuse to the top of the priority list for international policy makers. If the industry is not seen to be taking a proactive stance to advocate responsible consumption – proving that it can be a trustworthy partner in devising a forward strategy – it could find itself locked out of the debate, and the implications for business would be dramatic.
