Parodos
Albumai
V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

V. P. Andriukaičio veiklos dokumentai baigus eiti Europos komisaro pareigas.

Šiame parodos skyriuje pateikti dokumentai apie V. P. Andriukaičio veiklos barus po Europos komisaro mandato pasibaigimo – tiek Pasaulio sveikatos organizacijos Generalinio direktoriaus specialiojo pasiuntinio visuotinei sveikatos aprėpčiai Europos regione (Special envoy and special advisor for Universal Health Coverage of WHO Regional Bureau Director for European Region; nuo 2020-04-01), tiek ir Jungtinių Tautų visuotinio sveikatos aprėpties judėjimo 2030 Patariamosios grupės tarybos nario (UN Universal Health Coverage Movement 2030, member of Panel Advisory Board; nuo 2020-06-01), tiek ir Tuberkuliozės vakcinos iniciatyvos valdybos nario (Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative, member of Board; nuo 2020-07-01), tiek ir Rytų-Vidurio Europos ir Centrinės Azijos narkotikų politikos komisijos nario (Eastern-Central Europe and Central Asia Commission on Drug Policy, member; nuo 2021-05-01) veiklos kai kuriuos dokumentus. Šios keturios dabartinės oficialios pozicijos padeda V. P. Andriukaičiui pratęsti savo patirtį, sukauptą Europos komisaro darbe. O juk kaip Europos komisaras, jis dalyvavo ir Pasaulio sveikatos organizacijos (World Health Organization), ir Jungtinių Tautų Generalinės asamblėjos (United Nations General Assembly), ir G7, ir G20, ir Maisto ir žemės ūkio organizacijos (Food and Agriculture Organisation), ir Tarptautinės ekonominio bendradarbiavimo ir plėtros organizacijos (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), ir Pasaulio gyvūnų sveikatos organizacijos (World Organisation for Animal Health) ir kitose struktūrose, pristatydamas ES pozicijas, pasirašydamas dokumentus ar bendradarbiavimo memorandumus. Tai labai sustiprino V. P. Andriukaičio tarptautinę patirtį, kurią dabar išnaudoja dabartinėse pozicijose. Tai svarbūs momentai jo archyviniame dosje.

V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

V. P. Andriukaičio darbai 2019–2021 m. dėl Europos Sveikatos sąjungos sukūrimo.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.

V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

V. P. Andriukaičio, kaip Pasaulio sveikatos organizacijos specialaus pasiuntinio Europos regionui, pranešimai.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.

Vytenis Andriukaitis presentation in Global Health Conference Strengthening the EU role on Global Health

Europe leads the global drive towards Universal Health Coverage. What are the opportunities for the future?

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Special Envoy of the WHO for UHC for the European Region

Member States of WHO, adapting 13th general program of Work (GPW13 for 2019 – 2023 ) globally are committed to implement three interconnected strategic priorities, linked to three bold triple billion targets.

In September of 2020 countries of WHO European region approved a policy “The European Program of Work, 2020–2025 – “United Action for Better Health” (EPW) that sets priorities of European health policy for the coming five years.

The first Core Priority of this program is “Moving towards universal health coverage (UHC)”. International background of the priority is an obligation of European countries to implement UNDP Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 3 commits signatories to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. SDG 3.8 commits signatories to “achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential healthcare services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all”.

The fact that this first Priority under the leadership of doctor Hans Kluge Regional Director for Europe of the World Health Organization was developed amidst the COVID-19 crisis makes the objective very ambitious. Since the beginning of pandemic, we have seen more than 900 thousand deaths in European region. Those figures convince us that UHC is like never important.

The initial response of Europeans to pandemic was slow and highly fragmented, with Member States often pursuing their own national objectives to the detriment of Europe as a whole. At a certain point tensions in the EU were strong enough to describe the initial lack of solidarity in response to pandemic rightfully as a mortal danger to the EU. By voting for “United Action for Better Health”, Europeans showed commitment to overcome existing tensions and to work towards SDGs and UHC.

For the genesis of UHC we may look to the Constitution of WHO. A principle “The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent upon the fullest cooperation of individuals and States” is enshrined in the Constitution.

Most of European countries endorsed the above quoted principle in their national policies at least partially. Since 1970 public financing of the health sector has prevails in Europe regardless of political rivalries, ups and down.

The path chosen by Europeans to work for health by promoting the UHC pays back. The health policy based on solidarity chosen by Europeans is studied all over the world and it is an encouragement to continue the European drive towards UHC.

You may say that a vision of UHC more or less unites European region? However, there are huge gaps in coverage and marginalization of particularly vulnerable groups of the EU societies, like disadvantaged groups in society, patients with rare diseases, refugees? We see big differences in the life expectancy between countries in the hole European region.

The progress of UHC has national and international dimensions.

Firstly, the UHC national dimension, as it is stated in Global compact for progress towards UHC, “progressive realization of the right to health through UHC is primarily a national responsibility”. The COVID -19 pandemic and its looming economic fall-out are putting health and social care systems under heavy stress. And national dimension of UHC is under big pressure also.

People are fearful and trust in governments is eroding. Frontline health care workers not been supported adequately during pandemic, which adversely affects service quality. People want greater government spending on health but tend to overlook the need to invest in preparedness and public health services. Many COVID -19 responses are still gender blind.

Inequalities in health according to regions, social groups, gender are striking in all countries and are widening due to COVID-19. The poor and vulnerable are being left behind.

Healthcare workforce shortages also makes a lot of problems in many countries. In many regions within and between countries we can see lack of nurses and doctors, especially in areas of primary health care. Such medical deserts undermine people trust in our promise to leave no one behind and to move towards our triple targets.

Secondly, the UHC international dimension depends on regional and global solidarity. The exchange of good practices and international cooperation also matters.

Let us concentrate on international, especially European cooperation.

Europe needs more cooperation for health and more UHC for all Europeans:

  • Diseases do not care about borders, and their management should cross the borders too. Doesn’t matter – communicable or non-communicable diseases. In front of COVID-19 pandemic – nobody is safe until everyone is safe – is a lesson learned by all of us. We have to care about everyone’s lives, and not just in the EU. We are at least more than 1 billion  people leaving in European WHO region. And today like never before a call to action, made by the Pan – European Commission on health and sustainable Development chaired by former Prime Minister of Italy Mario Monti to rethink broad health policy priorities, to step up investments and reforms in health- and social care systems keeping in mind UHC is especially important.
  • “European Immunization Agenda 2030” of WHO is at the core of the European Program of Work. The initiative is instrumental for implementation an ambitious target to vaccinate 70% of people till the end of summer in hole European region. Strong leadership is needed to achieve the target.  According to recent data provided by the WHO Regional director Hanse Kluge as of today 3% of the population in 45 countries received a completed vaccination series, and data from 23 countries indicates that 51% of health workers have received at least 1 dose of vaccine. The gap in access to vaccines in European region is narrowing, yet inequity persists.
  • UHC is very important in our fight against cancer and rare disease. No one country alone can treat patients with rare cancers and rare diseases. Very timely initiative “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan” in line of our obligation “leaving no one behind” can be the most promising field of Pan – European cooperation in beating cancer and a leading example of global cooperation in this field.
  • Rare diseases are affecting up to 30 million in European region. We are hugely proud about European Reference Networks that were established to tackle pan-European challenges brought by these diseases. Unfortunately, as national rare disease policies are not harmonized and equally prioritized across MS, RD patients are still subject to postcode lotteries and their outcomes are still hugely dependent on the place of birth and residency.

The EU is doing a lot for health on international level but may do even more by helping all countries of WHO European region to manage COVID-19 pandemic, by opening access to public goods developed by European bodies (ECDC, EMA) to neighbors to the east and the south of the EU.

Reduction of cross border spread of communicable diseases, progress of wellbeing and social stability in neighboring countries, growth of soft power of the EU are tangible returns on EU investment into UHC of the EU neighbors. But it is not enough.  For what more it is needed see slides below.

One of political preconditions of the progress towards more solidarity, more cooperation for UHC in Europe  and of European leadership in a global health policy is self-determination of a role the EU wants to play in Health policy.

 Because Portugal now is the Presidency Country of the EU and is the host of this Global Health Conference, let us take a look to the Lisbon Treaty. In the Preamble of this Treaty we read:

“Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law.”. Under Lisbon treaty the EU is obliged to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of their people. The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples. The Union shall establish an internal market.

Development of the internal market and economic and monetary union is at the core of the European integration that started from the Coal and Steal Community and continuously shaped the design of all European Treaties.

Health is a value in itself and a human right but for years it was a small topic of European Union politics. COVID-19 has catapulted health to the top of political agenda. The European Health Union became buzzword of European politics in 2020. What are chances that EHU would be not the complimentary union to the internal market, but it will reshape European health policy internally and globally?

Following the logic of the TEU, the TFEU is prioritizing the articles devoted to the development of internal market against the articles dealing with other activities of the EU. Development of health is considered to be important to the Union as much at it serves better functioning of the internal market. The human health is treated almost exclusively up to the Member States even in areas as, for example, management of rare diseases and cancer, where most of the MS are not able to assure proper services to patients.

Legal limits enshrined in the treaty do not allow EU to confront COVID-19 in very effective and strong manner.  A minimalistic involvement of the EU into European health policy hampers European role on the international scale. How can the EU be active in health policy globally with very limited responsibilities inside the block? Limits of international outreach of the EU are clearly indicated by the fact that the Union is not even a member of the WHO.

Europeans need a more “healthier” face of Article 3 of the Lisbon Treaty. Let us amend part 3 of Article 3, which starts with “The Union shall establish an internal market” by one sentence. “It shall promote universal health coverage by establishing a health union”.

The explicit stance of the EU for UHC is needed not just because health per se. Currently EU citizens’ expectations on deliverables of the EU are exciding those related to current two main pillars like  single market or  economic and monetary union. Europeans are looking for the new stage of development of the EU. The pledge to work for SDGs and Green deal, current discussion on the EHU are examples of shifting political priorities. Based on humanist inheritance of Europe, on the values of respect for human dignity the an additional “humanistic” pillar is demanded but has no definition yet. Let us start the discussion how to name this new pillar, having in mind that the polishing of the term will take time. Why not to include health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being” into definition of the new pillar, thus, to consider a European Health Union as turning point from the block mainly concerned about economics to the union promoting the values sheared by founding fathers   “the values of tolerance, respect, equality, solidarity and peace”?

A notion of COVID-19 vaccine as a global public good, the notion of public goods such as health and environment is a sign that values of solidarity are capturing hearts and minds of people all over the world.

Let us be inspired by the words of Robert Shuman: World health “cannot be safeguarded without making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it”. Let us work for “United Action for Better Health, for UHC in our Countries, the EU, European WHO region, globally.

Portugal being a birthplace of great geographical discoveries and a place, where Lisbon treaty was signed. Portugal is well suited to champion the global health policy with the UHC at its core.


***
A European Health Union

Vytenis Andriukaitis

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken Europe. This is, first of all, a health crisis. Just in the EU/EEU alone, more than 610.000 deaths have been caused by COVID-19, with hundreds of thousands of excess deaths caused by disruption to health systems, long-term mental health impacts brought on by broken societal life that will be felt for years to come. It is also an economic and, finally, a social crisis that challenges the entire European project.

Until recently, development goals such as saving lives, promoting good health and longevity were off of the radar of European policy.  For decades, health-related matters were considered by the EU almost exclusively as business of Member States or of quasi-markets. Until COVID-19 came along, health remained a minor topic in European Treaties, in the European Semester when it comes to the EU’s Budget. The “EU does not take action” prevails unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level – this is how in usual everyday practice subsidiarity principle and the role of the EU in health is interpreted.

The experience of the pandemic has shed light on the weaknesses of existing mechanisms for collaboration among Member States and with the European institutions. COVID-19 has inspired a rethink of the role that health plays in European politics. To many Europeans - including patients, healthcare practitioners and progressive societal leaders - it is clear that health is a big issue, and we have to seize this window of opportunity to ensure strong public action is taken to transform the cooperation at the Member State and EU level.

Each previous health crisis (e.g., BSE, Ebola) has added a health policy layer and created new EU institutions (the European Medicines Agency and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, for example). In the face of this crisis, then, does Europe need to look at taking forward new EU competencies in the field of health, as well as the other areas of EU policy that impact on health?

After the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spring 2020, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats has come up with a set of proposals that would establish a European health Union (EHU). Since September 2020, the EU Commission is supporting the initiative by designing the first building blocks of an EHU. These relate to a stronger cross-border health threats response and better crisis preparedness. They will be in time followed by two major EHU initiatives: a Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe and Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.

So what is a European health Union, exactly? Are the proposed first building blocks of the EHU cohesive enough to serve as a strong basis for it? Does the creation of an EHU mean that the differences in average life expectancy at birth that exist between old and new Member States, of up to 7-9 years, will reduce in the future? Will an EHU bring innovations closer to every hospital bed in Europe and will irrigate “medical deserts” across the Member States?

In all European nations health is one of the most important pillars of well-being. Can you think of a better way for the EU to reach out to its citizens than through health solidarity? Unfortunately, the Commission’s most recent initiatives are unlikely to provide encouraging answers to the health-related expectations of Europeans. The current Commission proposal to build an EHU without treaty changes gives no chances of a strong EHU being built.

A genuine European Health Union would first and foremost to build on the EU Pillar of Social Rights, on the EU and member states commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals, on the European Green Deal, on the Recovery and Resilience Facility, on the  Digital Agenda for Europe. It is now time to combine these  and add to them the concept of a “Health and Well-being Deal”.

I propose some suggested features of the future EHU might have below:

  • The role of health policy in the European Treaties should be reconsidered and strengthened. The objectives that should be kept in mind are more proactive and preventive health measures, more solidarity when it comes to public health activities in Europe, and more cooperation to build resilient health care and cure systems.
  • There should be sufficient capacity to safeguard EU solidarity, as when there are shortages of medical supplies simultaneously facing Member States. The EU should be empowered in some areas to ensure centralized distribution of emergency medicines, ‘orphan drugs’ or medicines for rare cancer treatment, and supplies based on medical needs.
  • A cross-border healthcare directive is not enough. We also need the EU to share some responsibilities in “care and cure” in the areas of rare cancers and rare diseases while preserving subsidiarity as a core principle. We need the European health insurance Fund to cover rare disease and to ensure that the pledge “no one is left behind” is a reality in Europe. No European country is capable, on its own, of guaranteeing universal health coverage for all of the 30 million EU patients suffering from rare cancers or rare diseases, but the EU can do it.

Let us be clear: the challenge is not of making the EU institutions responsible for all health matters in but of finding the right form of integration and cooperation between the EU and its Member States so that they can act more effectively in both “normal” times and in times of pandemic.

One can imagine a range of different scenarios to develop an EHU. If we will follow the existing constraints and legal limits enshrined in the European Treaties, two scenarios can be envisaged:

  • scenario ”a” would utilise existing legal, financial and managerial instruments, improve functioning institutions, and improve the implementation of already-agreed policies. 
  • scenario “b” would see the fin- tuning of existing instruments of health policy in parallel with the development of secondary legislation and establishment of new institutions that can create added value for European health.

By opting for either of these scenarios, Europeans would be restricting the benefits they might obtain from deeper cooperation on health.

The main aim  of the EU and all its main objectives are enforced by Article 3 of the Treaties of the European Union (TEU). Health is not currently included in Article 3; it appears only as a ‘shared competence’ between the EU and the Member States in article 4 of the TFEU in a very limited form: as “common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty”. According to Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the EU shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States in the protection and improvement of human health. Article 168 of the TFEU - which is quite renowned by the health community -  is a development of the legal norms enforced by Articles 4 and  of the TFEU. Some powers are given to the EU over ensuring the safety of sanitary-phytosanitary, drugs, and medical devices.

Following the logic of the TEU, the TFEU is prioritizing the articles that are devoted to the development of an internal market over the articles dealing with other activities of the EU. Development of health care is considered to be important to the EU insofar as it better serves the functioning of the internal market. But Europe is not just the market per se. Europe needs to speak explicitly about good health being an aim of the EU, and about an EHU being a tool that could ensure the good health and longevity of Europeans. The need to speak about good health being an aim of the EU requires to go at a third scenario:

  • scenario “c” sees the status of health policyin the European Treaties being strengthened, with provisions for an EHU incorporated into the TEU and amending the TFEU, giving the EU some responsibility over health policy in very concrete areas while preserving the principle of subsidiarity at the core.

The best choice for Europeans would be to adopt the most ambitious scenario: scenario “c”. This would provide citizens with the opportunity to reap all the benefits that would stem from deeper cooperation over health. Europe lives according to its Treaties, so the demands of its citizens that cooperation in health matters is taken seriously should be enshrined in the TEU.  Europeans need to see a “healthier” face of Article 3 of the TEU. Let us amend part 3 of Article 3, which starts with “The Union shall establish an internal market” by one sentence. “It shall promote universal health coverage by establishing a health union”.

And then let us amend point k) of part 2 of article 4 of the TFEU about shared competence between the EU and its Member States in the area of health and following it to clarify article 168 of TFEU.

The Covid-19 crisis taught us to build solidarity. The response to future cross-border Health Threats could be strengthened by a health solidarity clause amending article 222 of the TFEU – a clause that will work in a similar way as the EU civil protection clause.

Maybe some of us would prefer development to be slow, but without being ambitious there is a risk we will miss a window of opportunity for evolving the EHU beyond the internal market, and beyond a narrow paradigm that does not fit the realities of the twenty-first century.

The citizens-led Conference on the Future of Europe should be very ambitious about taking over Europe.

The former European Commission president Jacques Delors described the EU’s lack of solidarity over its response to the pandemic as a mortal danger to the bloc.

But lack of solidarity in health is also a mortal danger. Let us be inspired by this insight, and let us be brave, building a  strong and genuine EHU.


***
Second draft On  May 6th from 10:00 to 12:00 CEST the 15th European Patients’ Rights Day

“The role of civic society and Patients Advocacy Groups for more resilient Health Care Systems. Lessons learned toward a European Health Union“.

Europeans need stronger health policy:

  • We all celebrate the 15th European Patients’ Rights Day in very important time. COVID19 is an awakening call for many. 2021 has been designated by WHO as the International Year of health and Care Workers in appreciation and gratitude for their unwavering dedication in the fight against pandemic. World health Day this year was dedicated to equity keeping in mind access of all people to vaccination. The Portuguese presidency of the Council of the EU on 7th and 8th of May will organise a Social summit with the aim to endorse the Action Plan of the European Pillar of Social Rights. And access to timely healthcare and cure will be included into it.

European Pillar of Social Rights

  • Thus, building still tentatively European Social Union we see opportunity for the European health Union to become part and parcel of it. On 9th of May the conference on the Future of Europe will start inviting all civic society and Patient’s Advocacy Groups to participate in it. And on 21 May 2021 in Rome the EC in cooperation with the Italian G20 Presidency will co-host the Global health Summit. In front of those events civic society and Patients Advocacy Groups voice is needed and to be heard.
  • Civic society and Patient Advocacy Groups are demanding stronger health policy and more coordinated actions for health. Diseases do not care about borders, and their management should cross the borders too. In front of COVID-19 pandemic - nobody is safe until everyone is safe - is a lesson learned by all of us. We must care about everyone’s lives, and not just in the EU. We are at least more than 1 billion people leaving in European WHO region. And today like never a call to action, made by the Pan – European Commission on health and sustainable Development chaired by former Prime Minister of Italy Mario Monti to rethink broad health policy priorities, to step up investments and reforms in health- and social care systems keeping in mind UHC is especially important.
  • Healthcare workforce shortages are ingrained common problems for many countries. In many regions within and between countries we can see lack of nurses and doctors. Medical deserts undermine people trust in our promise to leave no one behind. Some researches looked for clues because excess deaths differ across the EU MS in 2020. An increase of deaths in 2020 was compared with the number of hospital beds, doctors, and total healthcare personnel employed in the sector of human health. Correlation between total employment in the health sector and excess mortality appeared to be strongest.
  • Increased public investment in health sector is needed in all countries to make progress towards universal health coverage and to improve people healthcare. And it is very important goal for all Patient Advocacy Groups to ask political leaders at all levels to treat health care sector as a vitally important productive sector of our economy. Health could be the most dynamic driver for the achievement of a social Europe. Health and wellbeing are two faces of the same coin of Social Europe.
  • International cooperation for the Universal health coverage is very important in our fight against NCD’s, cancer or rare disease. No one country alone can treat patients with rare cancers and rare diseases. Very timely initiative “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan” in line of our obligation “leaving no one behind” can be the most promising field of Pan - European cooperation in beating cancer. And it can show a leading example of global cooperation in this field. Another area - rare diseases are affecting up to 30 million in European region. And here we see efforts to cooperate at EU level on voluntary basis treating those patients through ERN.
  • But as national rare disease policies and national cancer plans are not harmonized and equally prioritized across MS, RD and cancer patients are still subject to postcode lotteries and their outcome bare still hugely dependent on the place of birth and residency. And here we need to have shared competences between EU and MS, while preserving subsidiarity as a core principle. In food safety the EU and MS have shared competences, enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, but in health area do not have, the EU can only facilitate, support, co-ordinate and encourage MS to cooperate in this field. And we need the European health insurance Fund to cover rare cancers and rare diseases.
  • Record braking speed of vaccines development shows potential of international cooperation to develop lifesaving medical technologies. More generous public support for fundamental research is needed to provide help to millions of patients that need innovative treatment.
  • Accessibility to lifesaving technologies and to innovative treatment is a right of all patients. Patients in Portugal, Germany, Lithuania, Italy or anywhere deserves to have equal access to innovative treatment and to be treated equally according to the same medical protocols. Our EU is unequal one speaking about access to health care and cure. This is not only unfair: it is preventable. And only the EHU can prevent it. If we all are thinking about “Leaving no one behind”, “Health in all policies”, “Patient centered” approach we need to have a strong genuine European Health Union, which must be enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty.

Europeans clearly articulate their priorities:

According to Eurobarometer in summer 2020 health appeared to be the 4th most important issue facing the EU In winter 2021 health is leading the list with 38 percent of Europeans indicating health as the first or the second most important issue facing the EU.

Source: Eurobarometer

European leaders today are much more sensitive to demands of patients than 4 years ago.

We all know a lot of unions – customs union, economic and monetary union, banking union, fiscal union, digital union etc. Some of them are enshrined in the Lisbon treaty, some derive from it as part of internal market. The aim and all main objectives of the EU are enforced by the Art. 3 of the TEU. Thus, health is not on the Art. 3 of the TEU and human health is out of shared competencies between MS and EU (only common safety concerns in public health matters as shared competence between MS and EU).

Being Commissioner for health and Food Safety, I had a very strong tools in area of food safety, because of single market, but I did not have the same strong tools in area of health. Such constitutional asymmetry and legal limits enshrined in the treaties remain unchanged.

European Union is just at the very beginning of transforming itself into European Health Union

  • Political debates on the first building blocks of the EHU just continue, concentrating on what can be done with existing legal, financial etc. instruments or fine tuning of existing instruments in parallel to develop new secondary legislation.
  • Tradition to ignore health as a topic of European policy till now is strong across national governments, and European institutions. The EU does not take action” prevails “unless it is more effective than action taken at national level”
  • Voices of patients are much more fragmented in comparison to those lobbying for Common Agricultural and other traditional EU policies.
  • It is time to consolidate civil society and Patients’ Advocacy Groups forces in our desire to build a genuine European health Union.

The European Health Union is a new chapter in the development of the European project. The chapter that should be written by all of us.

  • Let us disseminate and promote Manifesto for a European Health Union.
  • Let us talk for more healthier face of European Treaties on European platforms devoted to the Conference on the Future of Europe. Europe is not just internal market per se.
  • Let us challenge our national parliaments and governments. “Nothing for us without us”- our voice must be heard.
  • Let us work with academia, public bodies and industry on design and advocacy of pan-European policies that provide more health for Europeans and net-present value for Member States, for Europe.
  • We need more Europe in health, and we need more health in Europe. Green deal is on the agenda of the EU. We need to add “health and wellbeing deal”.
  • Let us amend a part 3 of art.3 of the TEU which starts with “The Union shall establish an internal market “by one additional sentence “It shall promote universal health coverage by establishing a health union.” It can build a genuine European health Union.

 

 

V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

V. P. Andriukaičio veikla, kaip JT Visuotinės Sveikatos aprėpties Judėjimo eksperto, priimant dokumentus.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.


Dear all Political Advisors and Focal Points,

Thank you for your prompt feedback on and endorsement of our new political statement.  

We are pleased to share the following updates before the Global Health Summit and the World Health Assembly:

UHC2030 tweet: https://twitter.com/UHC2030/status/1395688683265830916?s=20

“To prevent future pandemics and achieve health & well-being for all by 2030, we must prioritize #equity. This year’s #UHCDay theme will be: Leave no one’s health behind: invest in health systems for all. Find out more: https://bit.ly/3focVIE #HeathForAll #LeaveNoOneBehind “

If we are to prevent future pandemics and achieve health and well-being for all by 2030, we must prioritize equity - investing more in health and allocating resources efficiently and equitably according to need. This year, the UHC Day campaign will continue to involve localized and sustainable campaigns, and more digital materials will be made available that campaigners can adapt to their local contexts and customize to include local languages. The 2021 campaign support pack will be available on the UHC Day campaign microsite during the summer. Meanwhile, please refer to UHC2030’s webpage about UHC Day and the UHC Day Campaign 2021 - Information Notes. Please share the news with partners through your constituencies, networks, and within your organizations.

  • The UHC2030 Civil Society Engagement Mechanism was able to influence the outcomes of the Multi-stakeholder Hearingwhich was organized to collect inputs for the UN High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS  taking place on 8-10 June and feed into the draft political declaration currently being negotiated among member states, which includes references to the importance of UHC and health systems for sustainable HIV/AIDS programmes. We will continue to engage in the preparation for this important UN High Level Meeting (HLM) in 2021, and promote opportunities to align follow-up of UN HLMs on health (HIV/AIDS in 2021, TB in 2023, NCDs in 2025) in SDG progress reviews and the UN HLM on UHC in 2023.
  • We are also using the opportunity of the preparation for the Generation Equality Forumto promote gender equality and women’s leadership, including through the Gender Equal Health and Care Workforce Initiative.

Best regards
Akihito, on behalf of the Core Team

***
Dear all Political Advisors and Focal Points,

In the lead-up to the Generation Equality ForumThe Alliance for Gender Equality and UHC (co-convened by Women in Global Health,Women DeliverSpectra Rwanda and Sama India), the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health and UHC2030 with its Civil Society Engagement Mechanism are launching a social media campaign to raise awareness on the importance of women’s leadership and universal health coverage (UHC) for women’s rights and gender equality.

UHC is critical for gender equality and women's rights. At the same time, gender equality must also be a foundation of UHC. This entails empowering women: their full and effective participation at all levels is essential to ensure that countries build health systems that address the needs of women and girls and protect everyone, including in efforts to prepare for future pandemics and infectious disease outbreaks.

Women are 70% of the global health workforce (WHO) and play an important role in community care. They are essential in delivering UHC and yet make up only 25% of decision makers. This is unacceptable. It is critical that the voices of women form part of health decision-making at all levels, from community to global, to ensure UHC meets the needs and priorities of all. Access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights is a basic human right. And because only gender-responsive and gender-inclusive UHC will meet the needs of all people, for UHC to be truly universal, it must integrate sexual and reproductive health and consider the health needs of  women, men and non-binary people throughout their lives.

We hope you will join us in reminding world leaders and activists that we cannot achieve gender equality without prioritizing UHC and investing in health systems for all.

The campaign will run from Monday, 28 June through Wednesday, 30 June.

Follow-us on @UHC2030, #GenderUHC. You can access our joint blog here and our social media toolkit here.  

Thank you for your commitment to achieving UHC and leaving no one behind.

Best regards
Akihito, on behalf of the Core Team

Dr Akihito WATABE, MD. PhD. MSc., UHC2030 Core Team
+41 22 791 38 35  l  watabea@who.int
20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland

 

V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

V. P. Andriukaičio tekstai knygoje apie ES ateitį, kaip FEPS eksperto.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.


Dear Vytenis Andriukaitis,

Thank you for the excellent agenda you have prepared for our meeting on Friday. It is very good and on point. We will circulate it shortly to the participants and I am looking forward to our exchange.

Building on this and as mentioned, we are preparing a book to be launched in May 2021 as the Conference on the Future of Europe will start. This book will gather the synthesis of our meetings as well as key expert statements. 

I would like to invite you to be one of these experts. Please find attached a letter on this matter. 

Looking forward to hearing from you. I would be pleased to count on your contribution as it would significantly bring added value to our publication.

Warm regards,
Maria Joao 

V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

V. P. Andriukaičio veikla, kaip FEPS eksperto, diskutuojant apie ES ateitį ir apie Europos Sveikatos Sąjungos sukūrimą.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.


Our European Future – Presentation

The book 'Our European Future: Charting a Progressive Course in the World' is the first high-quality book making proposals to the Conference on the Future of Europe, authored by 36 top experts and intellectuals and edited by FEPS President Maria João Rodrigues, with the collaboration of François Balate.

It is high time to bring in a real debate of ideas. This book offers solutions to rethink our socioeconomic model in the glare of the environmental and digital transformations; to redefine Europe’s role in the world to contribute to renewed multilateralism; to strengthen investment in public goods; and finally, to re-invent our democratic contract.

It brings together the insights of renowned experts from across Europe, and it should prove a handy guide for any progressive thinker, policymaker or activist, and for any citizen who would like to take part in the necessary democratic debate about our future.

The world is facing many great challenges: from pandemics to climate change, and from increasing inequality to the issues surrounding digitalization. In a new and rapidly changing global landscape, Europe must look for solutions to these difficulties to follow up on its impressive decades-long process of integration. Europe has the capacity to chart a progressive course in the world.

More: https://www.feps-europe.eu/resources/publications/797-our-european-future.html

***
Dear colleagues, dear friends,

As you may know FEPS on the 27th May was launched a collective book “ Our European Future “, were after our zoom meeting my article about the EHU was included. Of course, FEPS is only one of the many think tanks being active in debates related to the Future of the EU. And I think, we can see also a lot of positive initiatives from others, from different think tanks and foundations.

But despite of different views related to different political families, we can analyse all proposals and we can find positive ways to encourage our European citizens to participate in the Conference on the Future of Europe.

As you know, the platform as a hub of the Conference on the Future of Europe now is open. And this is our opportunity to join it, to speak up, to engage with people in our debates about the EHU. And also about all 8 topics of those debates. Between those topics I see 4 of them as very important to us: 1. Climate change and environment, 2. Health 3. A stronger economy, social justice and jobs, 4. EU in the world. Of course all other 4 are also very important. But SDG3, climate change, green Deal, Social Pillar of Social Rights and Digital Europe are very interlinked with Health. Not only Health topic per se. Health and well-being Union is high on the agenda of today’s political debates. 

And I just try to follow Health topic, and I have now a little bit overview of the situation.

As you know, in the platform we can find 1. Events near you, 2 share your ideas 3. Organise your events.

My question is, how can we all be involved into the platform, how can we attend the events, how can we share our ideas and how can we organise our events being in the network of all participants of the platform.

The European Institute for Health and Sustainable Development is registered as one of the partners in the Platform. I am trying to have my personal account in the platform also. But it would be good to discuss our common efforts to be engaged with all participants of the platform. At the moment I didn’t find no information about our Manifesto and about our Explanatory Memorandum. From my point of view it would be good to create a link between www.europeanheathunion.eu and this hub. And also it would be good to see EHFG as one of the actors in this platform. 

Can we disseminate the message about the platform between our friends, students, NGOS and academia, also between different stakeholders.

As you know all ideas from the platform will be collected by the Executive Board of the Conference at the end of the Conference. And as you know, the first plenary session will be held in the EP at 17 or 19 of June. 

I think, we have a good opportunity to create a network of networks using such platform as the real tool promoting our strong  EHU ideas.

It would be good to know your thoughts and opinions about my views.

Best regards,
Vytenis 

V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

V. P. Andriukaičio veikla baudžiamosios teisės taikymo narkotikų vartojime komisijoje.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.


First working meeting of the EECACD Commissioners

April 13th, 2021 at 10:00 CET (Geneva time), (11:00 Ukraine, Lithuania and Latvia time)

On-line meeting

Concept

The Eastern Europe and Central Asia Commission on Drug policy (EECACD) is a regionally led, independent, high-level group of “champions” for progressive drug policy reforms in the region. The commission is a collaborative initiative aiming at opening an informed debate on drug policies, their achievements  as well as their related harms, across Eastern Europe and central Asia .

The EECACD will review the impact of current policies across the region and draft recommendations for evidence-based policies prioritizing health and rights. The EECACD will also aim at mobilizing public opinion and catalyzing political support for further action at national, regional and international levels.

The core group of five commissioners was established at the end of 2020. A first meeting of this group will aim at sharing and debating the general vision for the Commission, its format and ways of working, budget, and discussing next steps of the EECACD’s development.

Key objectives for the meeting:

  • To introduce core group members to each other, networking;
  • To discuss the general vision of the Commission’s work and its objectives;
  • To discuss the current state of drug policy in the EECA region, based on four background papers that have been commissioned for the meeting;
  • To discuss additional members of the Commission and plan on how to engage with these new members;
  • To discuss fundraising strategies for the Commission.

Participants (7-9):

5 EECACD Commissioners (please see bios in annex 1):

  • President Aleksander Kwaśniewski, former President of Poland, Member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy;
  • Professor Michel Kazatchkine, former Executive Director of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Senior Fellow at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy
  • Elena Pinchuk, Founder of the Anti-AIDS Foundation;
  • Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, is WHO Special Envoy for the European region, former European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety;
  • Andris Piebalgs, Adviser to the President of Latvia and former European Commissioner for Development.

3 experts (please see bios in annex 2):

  • Alexander Kupatadze
  • Mikhail Golichenko
  • Raminta Stuikyte

EECACD Secretary

  • Lena Kucheruk

Program

TIME (CET)

 

SESSION

10:00—10:15

 

 

 

 

10:15—10:30

 

 

 

 

10:30—10:40

 

Opening and introductions of participants

 

Aleksander Kwaśniewski

 

 

The Global Commission on Drug Policy, and existing Regional Commissions.

Vision and objectives for the EECACD

 

Michel Kazatchkine

 

Discussion

10:40—10:50

 

break

 

 

 

10:50—11:10

Current state of drug policy in the EECA region, debate based on three thematic Policy Briefs:

 

1.    Production, trafficking and consumption of illicit drugs in EECA region

Alexander Kupatadze

Discussion

 

11:10—11:30

2.    Drug Laws and Policies in Four Regions of Eurasia

 Mikhail Golichenko

Discussion

 

11:30—11:50

3.    Perception of drugs in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Raminta Stuikyte

Discussion

 

11:50—12:25

Next steps for the Commission: strategy, members, logistics, fund-raising

Moderated discussion

 

12:25—12:30

Closing remarks

 
***

EECACD fundraising strategy

Background summary

A regional EECA Commission on drug policy (EECACD) is a regionally led independent, high-level group of opinion leaders, acting as a collaborative initiative that aims at bringing informed debates on drug policy and its related harms, as well as recommendations for better policy alternatives.

Accordingly to its mission, aim and objectives and body of work that is envisaged, there is need in financial support for its activity. The main categories of costs to be covered are as following: work of the secretariat to provide ongoing support for work of commissioners, analytical work and development of various specific products (assessments, reports, articles, statements etc), technical work and expertise (including, but not limited to, development of model legislation pieces), respective gatherings, meetings and visiting activities (all travel-related costs).

Goals and Objectives

The ultimate goal of this fundraising strategy is to ensure funding for all the planned priorities and respective activities by defining all potential sources for funding, listing all potential donors with their profiles and potential topics/frames for funding as well as timeline for fundraising work to be done within nearest period of time (April 2021—December 2021).

In order to meet this goal, the EECACD needs to meet the following objectives:

  • To have at least one dedicated staff member to work precisely on fundraising goals (secretary to the EECACD);
  • To ensure support to this work by the secretariat of the Global Commission: to review and advice at various stages of fundraising process, to share all the relevant and already available information as well as formal and informal contacts, especially when contacting global and regional donors, etc.;
  • To agree on timelines and to prioritize contacts/donors;
  • To cultivate and maintain relationships with donors;
  • To ensure development of proposal/s with required specifics in compliance with donors’ priorities and expectations;
  • To ensure those proposals to be agreed/amended by the Global Commission secretariat team;
  • To ensure submission and ongoing communication with donors in order to meet all the respective requirements as well as timely amendments to the text of proposals.

Currently available funding

Currently Alliance for Public Health (APH), a Ukrainian NGO, one of the Global Fund’s (GF) principal recipient, provides support to the EECACD within the GF regional grant. Its financial support is available for 2019-2021 years, but with opportunities to continue for the next three years as well (2022-2024) within the next regional GF grant.

Within these three years (2019-2021) APH has provided support for the following activities:

2019:

  • Partners meeting to discuss and negotiate establishment of the EECACD, November 8, 2019, Geneva. Partners representing different organizations in the region together with the Global Commission secretariat and Professor Kazatchkine has discussed potential creation of the regional Commission, has developed the list of potential members and terms of reference for the EECACD. –10 000 USD;

2020:

  • Secretary person (Olena Kucheruk) is contracted since March 2020 to support development of the EECACD (average budget is 1200-1600 USD per month, depending on scope of work reported monthly);
  • Design of EECACD brochure—200 USD;
  • Three experts on drug policy (Raminta Stuikyte, Aleksander Kupatadze, and Mikhail Golichenko) were contracted to develop three policy briefs for the EECACD. –15 000 USD;

2021:

  • Secretary person (Olena Kucheruk) (average budget is 1500-1900 USD per month, depending on scope of work reported monthly);
  • Policy papers’ translation into Russian, design and printing costs. – 10 000 USD;
  • 1st informal meeting of the EECACD core group (April 2021)—20 000USD (can be re-allocated to other meetings this year);
  • Official launch of the EECACD (September 2021).—20 000 USD

NOTE: Additional support is available in 2021 upon request to respective activities.

Fundraising opportunities within the next GF regional grant

EECACD work and budget will be included into the next GF regional project (2022-2024) to continue support of EECACD development and respective regional and national activities. It will cover EECACD’s needs partially.

Budget of 800 000 USD is negotiated and agreed by all partners, and planned for the EECACD for next three years (2022-2024) within this regional project. There is a high probability that the grant will be approved and the EECACD will get this budget.

According to the preliminary developed plans, we have approximate budget for next three years (2022-2024):

PRELIMINARY BUBGET_EECA COMMISSION_2022-2024

Budget items

Unit rate

quantity

Total, in USD

SECRETARIAT AND RESEARCH

Secretariat: salary (one senior program officer based in Geneva, including tax)

8 000

36 months

288 000

Secretariat travel costs

10 000

3 years

30 000

Financial specialist

4 000

36 months

144 000

Office and admin costs

2 000

36 months

72 000

thematic reports (2), statements (5), data collection (consultants)

50 000

 

50 000

First report (consultant)

7 000

1

7 000

Model Drug Law (consultants)

25 000

 

25 000

Sub-total:

 

 

 

616 000

EVENTS/MEETINGS/WORKSHOPS

 

 

 

Regular Commissioners meetings (once per year, 2 days for 15 participants)

20 000

3

60 000

Participation at the relevant events, conferences (to learn more about drug policy, as well as to follow up and promote report and recommendations)

4 000

8

32 000

Launch of the report (high-level event) (up to 50 participants)

35 000

1

35 000

High-profile media and stakeholders regional events (2) (including new possible formats)

30 000

2

60 000

Regional capacity-building workshops (1 event, 25 persons, 2 days)

20 000

1

20 000

Regional networking and advocacy workshops (2 events, 25 persons, 2 days)

20 000

1

40 000

National networking and advocacy workshops (5 events, 25 persons, 2 days each)

10 000

5

50 000

Sub-total:

 

 

 

297 000

COUNTRY VISITS

 

 

 

Country missions (10 missions, 2-3 days, 2-3 persons each)

5 000

10 visits

50 000

Sub-total:

 

 

50 000

 

 

 

 

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH

 

 

 

Communication and outreach (social media management, website, work with media, statement dissemination etc.)

4 000

36 months

144 000

Production of the report (editing, design, layout, translation, printing, dissemination)

60 000

 

60 000

Sub-total:

 

 

 

204 000

TOTAL:

 

 

1 167 000

Types of funding

It is important, at this point in the plan, to differentiate between the various funding streams that provide revenue for the EECACD:

  1. International and regional donors:
  • European Commission;
  • Multilateral and international entities: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (directly or indirectly, within the regional projects);
  • Alliance for Public Health (funds which are already available and within the next regional grant for next three years).
  1. Governmental donor institutions:
  • Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation,
  • Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad),
  • UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office,
  • German BMZ and GIZ,
  • Austrian Development Agency,
  • Dutch Embassy,
  • Finnish International Development Agency (FINNIDA), other ones;
  1. Private philanthropy:
  • OSF (both PHP and GDPP),
  • Elton John Foundation,
  • Regional/national philanthropy: private funds operating at separate countries, such as the following, but not limited to: Poroshenko Foundation, Viktor Pinchuk Foundation, Klitchko Foundation, Rinat Akhmetov Foundation, International charitable foundation Kartu, Dmitry Zimin "Dynasty" Foundation, Mikhail Prokhorov Fund, Alfa Group Consortium.
  1. Resources available at the countries’ level: partners working both regionally and nationally, such as (but not limited to) the following:
  • national OSF offices (opportunity to have some staff members who are covered by OSF. Potentially we may expect some co-sponsored national activities),
  • regional networks: EHRA, AFEW, ENPUD, others;

They potentially can provide organizational, technical, logistic and financial support. They could be approached at individual countries’ level and to be dedicated to separate and specific events (report launch, public debates, conferences, events, visits, etc.);

Assumptions:

In formulating this plan, the EECACD is operating under the following assumptions:

  1. The current fundraising environment could be a challenging one due to the current economic and aid industry situation - mostly within COVID-19 related context. Significant part of the donors re-allocated their funds to COVID-related specific needs (both urgent and long-term ones). However, there is still an opportunity for our fundraising — if we accommodate and demonstrate that our priorities fit with the needs related to COVID-19 (such as decarceration, public safety, etc.);
  1. The Global Commission has a solid reputation globally and has respective high-level contacts (both formal and informal), friends, and friendly donors. Their advice that can be used for this fundraising as well;
  1. Taking into account our specificity, we are mostly oriented for more flexible donors approach with open agenda and respective funds opportunities. Project-oriented finds can be also potentially raised, but it would need more negotiations and at least preliminary agreement by some commissioners to work on a specific agenda.

Timeline:

  1. To get agreement on the best potential donor (end of April 2021);
  2. To start communication process with selected donor. Preferably with participation of Commissioners and their contacts opportunities. (end of April—beginning of May 2021);
  3. To get preliminary agreement with a donor (by June);
  4. To develop the concept (using some of documents we already have, but with more specifics and focuses to the donor) (by the mid of July 2021);
  5. To develop the full proposal accordingly to the format and all requirements (by mid of August 2021);
  6. To communicate with other potential donors simultaneously (but mostly focus all our efforts and time on the one donor to get better result).

Profile of potential donors

We may consider the following most promising donors:

  1. EC
  2. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
  3. GIZ
  4. Elton John Foundation
  5. GF
  6. NORAD
  7. OSF: GDPP, PHP, Eurasia Program, Brussels office
  8. Regional/national philanthropy

Detailed information on all mentioned donors:

Donor: EC     

Priority/thematic area:

Potential content for our proposal: accordingly to the EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025 (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-security/20200724_com-2020-606-commission-communication_en.pdf) we should focus on both security and public health issues for our proposal, as the document contains both priorities. Thus, we may include the following approaches to the proposal:

  • EECACD will advocate for more balanced drug policy in the region, including (but not limited to) more focus on illicit drug traffickers instead of the people who use drugs. Thus, our traditional decriminalization priority suits the security issue very well;
  • We may include decarceration priority, taking into account that the Agenda document also contains focus on ‘alternative to coercive sanctions’ and “drug use problems in prison”. Decriminalization works for decarceration: this is also important in the context of COVID pandemic;
  • Promotion and support for harm reduction programs and measures to balance states’ drug policy in the region. Harm reduction remains to be clear priority for EU, while EECA countries have different experience and wide range from nothing in Russia till many different options in some countries (including needle exchange and OST in prisons in Moldova and safe injecting rooms in Ukraine).

The Agenda document also contains recommendations on international cooperation, including between EU and third countries and regions. Thus, we can use it to frame our proposal, also emphasizing the potential benefit on both security and public health aspects, taking into account that EU and EECA are neighboring regions.

Potential mechanism for funding:

EECACD may use following 4 potential mechanisms:

EU Public Health Program --(https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/programme_en; info on funding - https://ec.europa.eu/chafea/health/funding/joint-actions/index_en.htm (public health)

Justice Program – (https://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2014-2020/justice/index_en.htm;)

Internal

Security Fund – (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/internal-security-fund-police)

Horizon 2020 --(https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/)

Process/how to reach out:

As there are currently no open calls for proposals, EECACD needs to arrange reaching out to DG Home Affairs (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/who-we-are/contact-us_en) as drug policy is under this DG (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/drug-control/eu-response-to-drugs_en). The goal is to present the key idea for their attention.  Preferably this could be done at a higher level – e.g. via arranging a meeting of President Kwasniewsky/Professor Kazatchkine with the DG leadership. That is definitely the most important step. While secretary person can do all technical work (developing revised concept note for the first meeting, developing the full proposal, if the idea is well accepted, etc.), this one is political negotiations, thus should be done by leaders of the Commission. Such high-level networking will serve as a shortcut to ensure funding for the EECACD.

Donor: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

Priority/thematic area:

The SADC's engagement in the area of health revolves around three issues: the strengthening of health systems; the fight against communicable and noncommunicable diseases; and the improvement of sexual, reproductive, maternal, neonatal and child health. Thus, drug policy issues potentially can be addressed within the strengthening of health systems priority (considered as a part of public health reform in more broad meaning), and within the priority on communicable diseases (with direct correlation to HIV, TB and HCV). The SADC is active in low and middle-income countries (in both stable and fragile contexts), as well as in transition countries. Most of the EECA Commission countries are within the list of SADC’ priority list of countries

Potential mechanism for funding:

My recommendation is to look for funding within the frame of multilateral cooperation. Multilateral cooperation is an important element of Swiss development cooperation. Thanks to their long years of experience and considerable resources, multilateral organizations  make an important contribution to solving problems affecting developing countries worldwide. Some 37% of all Swiss development cooperation funds are disbursed to such organizations in the form of general financial assistance (known as core contributions). Bilateral cooperation accounts for 63%. One fifth of these bilateral funds are used for projects that are directly implemented by multilateral organizations on the ground.

Process/how to reach out:

One of the ways to approach SADC is via drafting a Concept Paper (using the already drafted one with some re-focus) and arranging a meeting at one of its offices with an ultimate goal to ensure including the Global Commission and its EECA branch into the list of Priority Organizations for SADC (under the Global Funds, Networks and others umbrella). If this aspiration is too high, the Commission may seek funding via other instruments, like Swiss cooperation with Eastern Europe.

Donor: GIZ

Priority/thematic area:

GIZ supports people “in acquiring specialist knowledge, skills and management expertise. They help organizations, including building capacities and experience in a wide variety of areas: health, legal affairs, public finance, communications, organizational development, education and training”. As GIZ notes itself “…long-term impact can only be achieved if all activities and strategies are efficiently coordinated and stakeholders in all sectors are adequately consulted. At GIZ, capacity development is about strengthening partners and tapping potentials.

Whereas the GIZ priorities are very broad, I may point out to a specific project in Africa that may be cited as an example of a project funded by GIZ, which may be similar to the one offered by the Commission is “Support to the ECOWAS Commission in the areas of peace and security”. That means that approaching GIZ, we may refer to the need in support for regional mechanisms in order to identify individual solutions for the countries of the region.

Potential mechanism for funding and process/how to reach out:

We may approach GIZ under the themes of Universal Health Coverage and  Global Health Security as there is no specific priority for drug policy. The best way could be, again, to ensure contact with respective offices (maybe, in Berlin and Kyiv) to present them the Concept Note or at least to find out what mechanisms could be used to get funding.

Donor: Elton John AIDS Foundation

Priority/thematic area:

Among the five priorities of Elton John Foundation there are two compatible with the Commission’s goals: People who use drugs and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The activities eligible for funding include advocacy and policy work (as it is cited below at the web site). Thus, EJAF can be considered as potential donor for EECACD. As I know, they have developed their work in the EECA region and are going to stay here for future.

Potential mechanism for funding and process/how to reach out:

There are no open calls for proposals at present, but I have some contacts to be potentially used to for funding enquiries: EJAF ED: Anne Aslett anne.aslett@eltonjohnaidsfoundation.org ; Program Director: Mohamed Osman mohamed.osman@eltonjohnaidsfoundation.org.

Donor: GF

Priority/thematic area:

The Global Fund is a partnership designed to accelerate the end of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as epidemics. As an international organization, the Global Fund mobilizes and invests more than US$4 billion a year to support programs run by local experts in more than 100 countries. GF is quite active in EECA region, providing significant budgets to separate countries of the region as well as providing regional grants on special issues (such as transition to domestic funds currently).

Drug policy issues can be part of so-called strategic initiatives, mostly within CRG department.

Potential mechanism for funding:

There are two possible opportunities/frames to apply for GF funding for drug policy related issues:

(1). Different GF strategic initiatives, mostly within SRG department (such as Breaking Down Barriers initiative);

(2). GF grants to the EECA region, within the existing frames and funding requests procedures. Currently EECACD is supported within one of such grant to the Alliance for public health.

Process/how to reach out:

The best way is to communicate directly to Ralf Urgens (ralf.jurgens@theglobalfund.org) and Aleksandrina Iovita (alexandrina.iovita@theglobalfund.org) from the GF SRG department. I am in good working contacts with both of them.

Donor: NORAD (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation)

Priority/thematic area:

Selecting from the thematic areas of NORAD (Climate Change and Environment, Democracy and Good Governance, Education, Energy, Global Health, Higher Education and Research, Macroeconomics and Public Administration and Oil for Development) it is, obviously, Global Health that somehow fits with the Commission’s tasks. The Global Health priorities include:

  • Women, children and adolescents’ health
  • Sexual and reproductive health and rights
  • Epidemics of HIV, TB, malaria, hepatitis, neglected tropical and other communicable diseases
  • Global Health Security and enhanced capacity to detect and respond to epidemics and health emergencies
  • Building cross sectoral collaborations and stronger health systems

Four factors are cross-cutting issues for all Norwegian development policy and aid (including health): human rights, women’s rights and gender equality, climate change and environment, and anti-corruption.

The potential link with the Commission’s work may be built across the priority on HIV, building cross-sectoral collaborations and Global Health Security.

However, there is a significant barrier: the prioritized countries do not include any country within the scope of the Commission – here is the link to the full list of the countries (mostly the least developed countries from Africa, Asia and Americas).

Potential mechanism for funding and process/how to reach out:

At the same time, Within the Funding section of the NORAD’s website there is a chapter on Norad’s Grant Schemes for International Organisations and Networks.

The overall purpose of Norad’s support to International organizations and network is to ensure regional and international organizations’ and networks’ ability to influence national, regional and international decision-makers. There will be no open call for proposals in 2020 for the Grant Scheme for International Organizations, and only organizations invited by Norad are entitled to apply for funding.

Therefore, there is a need in high-level advocacy (probably at the level of President Kwasniewski) to get access to this instrument. If the Global Commission is invited, the Concept Note may be submitted for NORAD’s consideration with further development into a full proposal.

Donor: OSF

Priority/thematic area:

At OSF it is, obviously, Global Drug Policy Program, that could become a partner/donor. Inter alia, its priorities include “pushing for international and regional policy reforms through our own advocacy and through our support for established drug policy reform groups”, which covers the Commission’s operations. Professor Michel Kazatchkine, being the Board member of the Program, may present the idea for EECA Commission for the OSF. Besides, synergy and complementarity with Eurasia Program and Public Health Program might help with identifying sources for funding in the best possible way. 

Important note: OSF is in the transition process to the new vision, strategy and structure respectively. The OSF Global Board was waiting for the elections’ result before making serious decisions regarding the further development and priorities.  As Mr. Biden is elected for the President position, it provides more opportunities for drug policy topic to remain among OSF’s priorities. The OSG Global Board meeting will be held by the end of 2020, then some general details became available. After that, all Network Programs (including GDPP, PHP and Eurasia Program) as well as all National Foundations will revise their strategies respectively. That will be definitely the right time to put drug policy into OSF agenda.

There are some prospects for drug policy issues within OSF strategy/structure. There are new priorities, including those, which have been developed as response to COVID-related challenges, including the following potential thematic areas:

  • In COVID pandemic era decarceration became an obvious priority for public health, security and other state systems. Decarceration currently is in a top priority within many different OSF Programs, it became a kind of cross-cutting priority. Decriminalization and depenalization of simple drug possession can be considered as one of the way for decarceration;
  • Vulnerable groups, their dignity and human rights will remain among key priorities for OSF. It can be re-framed in other way, but it will remain for sure.

Potential mechanism for funding:

There are two possible ways to get funds from OSF: (1). Open calls for proposals; (2). negotiated grants. I would suggest the second option.

There is only one limitation with this potential donor: OSF usually does not provide such big grants, as we need for 2 years work of the EECACD.

Process/how to reach out:

Obviously, OSF may be approached via a plethora of formal and informal contacts. The Concept Note may be presented for consideration for the Programs I mentioned and then the best solution might be identified for actual funding of the Commission’s activities.

Regional/national philanthropy

Ukraine:

Poroshenko Foundation: http://poroshenko.com/en?section=ano

The private fund supported by Petro Poroshenko, ex-President of Ukraine. Key priorities include promotion of justice, equality and freedom for everyone. There are three main programs: (1) Inclusive education of children with special educational needs; (2) Cultural and spiritual development; and (3) Ukraine is the only one. They also conduct some International activity aimed at establishing dialogue and cooperation with governmental and non-governmental international organizations to achieve results in charitable projects to implement such universal values as mutual respect, equality, assistance, humanity, freedom, spirituality and humanism into the life of Ukrainian society. There is a prospect we may approach them with a request for cooperation.

Viktor Pinchuk Foundation (https://pinchukfund.org/ua/)

An international, private and non-partisan philanthropic foundation based in Ukraine. It was established in 2006 by Victor Pinchuk, businessman and philanthropist

The vision of the Foundation: everyone has the power to act; empowered future generations can be a major driver of change; long-term and large-scale social investments can create a favorable environment enabling people to take their destinies into their own hands.

The Foundation invests into three main areas: (1) in people, to boost human capital, (2) in society, to promote social responsibility, and (3) in the world, to foster a more integrated world.

There are many different projects under those 3 categories. Investing into people is mostly focused on culture (PinchukArtCentre), education Zavtra.UA, WorldWideStudies, Public Lectures), and some health issues, such as neonatal support (Cradles of Hope). Investments into societal development are centered around cultural, social and political issues such as: Davos Philanthropic Roundtable, Platform dobro.ua, Babyn Yar, Holocaust Memorial Center, Veteran Hub, Jewish communities. Investments into the global developments focus on rooting European values in Ukraine as well as promoting the image of Ukraine at the international level: Yalta European Strategy, Davos Ukrainian Breakfast, Ukraine House Davos, The Munich Ukrainian Lunch, Security Roundtable, Atlantic Council, Amicus Europae Foundation, Brookings Institution, Open Ukraine Foundation

My suggestion is that EECACD may engage with some of the above mentioned international platforms (Yalta, Davos, e.g.) to present new innovative drug policy for the high-profile audiences, such as politicians, financiers, economists and philanthropists.

Klitchko Foundation (https://www.klitschkofoundation.org/en/about/)

The foundation is the charity project of Klitchko brothers, former boxers. The key group of beneficiaries is children. The Foundation’s vision is to make kids’ dreams true. The foundation works in three spheres: sport, science, and education. The projects they support mostly focus on sport activities, providing new opportunities for children to be involved into sport. Educational projects seek to promote environmental-minded approaches and provide opportunities to develop individual skills via creating and supporting various new platforms and formats for education.

The Klitchko foundation has never supported drug-related issues previously. Vladymyr Klitchko is currently the Mayor of Kyiv city, capital of Ukraine, and is one of the leaders of the Fast Track Cities Program (the UNAIDS program to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030)  https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/campaigns/World-AIDS-Day-Report-2014https://www.fast-trackcities.org/cities/kyiv)

I would advise our inquiry related to their interests to children and to HIV/AIDS issues in association with drug policy.

Rinat Akhmetov Foundation (https://akhmetovfoundation.org/en)

There are three main programs/priorities of the foundation:

  1. Saving lives (https://akhmetovfoundation.org/en/rinat-ahmetov-poryatunok-zhyttiv). Within this direction  the Foundation has been providing support to fight COVID-19 in Ukraine (mostly procuring equipment to hospitals, modern ventilators, sample analysers, as well as protective equipment for doctors and rapid tests), as well as procurement of more than 200 ambulance vehicles for Ukraine.
  2. Here to help (https://akhmetovfoundation.org/en/rinat-ahmetov-dopomozhemo) program is aimed at humanitarian aid to people who are affected by the armed conflict in the Donbas region.
  3. Rinat Akhmetov to children (https://akhmetovfoundation.org/en/rinat-ahmetov-dityam) is a program of providing help to children with medicines, food packages, innovative implants; psychological and physical rehabilitation; complex surgeries.

The foundation had provided support to fight tuberculosis in Ukraine. In 2008-2014 the ‘Let’s stop tuberculosis in Ukraine’ Program (https://akhmetovfoundation.org/en/project/zupynymo-tuberkuloz-v-ukraini-_3091) had significantly contributed into developing of new approaches to existing old and out-dated TB system in Ukraine.

Georgia:

International charitable foundation Kartu

The foundation is the private foundation of Bidzina Ivanishvili, who is a Georgian politician, businessman, and philanthropist. His Foundation provides support for the following spheres; culture, sport, agriculture, healthcare, infrastructure, tourism, ecology, education and science. Within the healthcare component the foundation has provided support for technical equipment and renovation of some hospitals in Georgia as well as some individual support for technically complex surgeries for Georgians abroad.

There is no official or open information about the Foundation and its activity.

Russian Federation:

There are multiple private charitable foundations in Russian Federation, such as:

None provides support to drug policy or even to HIV or other related spheres. It is very unlikely that any of mentioned above would ever consider supporting drug policy, taking into account clear and strict position of the RF Government on drug-related issues. Moreover, there are significant reputation risks to the EECACD to considering any support by the mentioned foundations as all of their fortunes are directly connected to the rule of Vladimir Putin.

There are three Russian private foundations, which we may consider approaching potentially:

1. Dmitry Zimin "Dynasty" Foundation (https://www.dynastyfdn.com/english/-- archive version of the web-site)

It officially closed its activities in 2015 due to the oppression of the Russian government. The Foundation does not exist anymore, but Dmitry Zimin and his son Borys Zimin continues their support for various projects, though there is not much information publicly available. There is need in personal contact only if considering his support.

1. Mikhail Prokhorov Fund (http://prokhorovfund.com/) The Found provides support mostly in two spheres: (1) art and cultural projects, and (2) education and science.

2. Alfa Group Consortium (http://alfagroup.org/). One of the largest privately owned investment consortiums in Russia. Among other activities they support annual electronic music festival –Alfa Future People (https://allfest.ru/tags/alfa-future-people-afp). Potentially they might be interested in supporting drug policy issues, taking into account that there are drug use and overdose episodes happened during the Festival.

This fundraising strategy is flexible and working document. It can be amended accordingly to new information or opportunity appears.

 

V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

Kvietimas iš PSO Europos Regiono direktoriaus Hanso Klugės dalyvauti 71 PSO Regioninio komiteto sesijoje.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.



V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

V. P. Andriukaičio informacija apie straipsnį apie Europos Sveikatos sąjungą.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.


A European Health Union
Vytenis Andriukaitis

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken Europe. This is, first of all, a health crisis. Just in the EU/EEU alone, more than 610.000 deaths have been caused by COVID-19, with hundreds of thousands of excess deaths caused by disruption to health systems, long-term mental health impacts brought on by broken societal life that will be felt for years to come. It is also an economic and, finally, a social crisis that challenges the entire European project.

Until recently, development goals such as saving lives, promoting good health and longevity were off of the radar of European policy.  For decades, health-related matters were considered by the EU almost exclusively as business of Member States or of quasi-markets. Until COVID-19 came along, health remained a minor topic in European Treaties, in the European Semester when it comes to the EU’s Budget. The “EU does not take action” prevails unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level – this is how in usual everyday practice subsidiarity principle and the role of the EU in health is interpreted.

The experience of the pandemic has shed light on the weaknesses of existing mechanisms for collaboration among Member States and with the European institutions. COVID-19 has inspired a rethink of the role that health plays in European politics. To many Europeans - including patients, healthcare practitioners and progressive societal leaders - it is clear that health is a big issue, and we have to seize this window of opportunity to ensure strong public action is taken to transform the cooperation at the Member State and EU level.

Each previous health crisis (e.g., BSE, Ebola) has added a health policy layer and created new EU institutions (the European Medicines Agency and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, for example). In the face of this crisis, then, does Europe need to look at taking forward new EU competencies in the field of health, as well as the other areas of EU policy that impact on health?

After the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spring 2020, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats has come up with a set of proposals that would establish a European health Union (EHU). Since September 2020, the EU Commission is supporting the initiative by designing the first building blocks of an EHU. These relate to a stronger cross-border health threats response and better crisis preparedness. They will be in time followed by two major EHU initiatives: a Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe and Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.

So what is a European health Union, exactly? Are the proposed first building blocks of the EHU cohesive enough to serve as a strong basis for it? Does the creation of an EHU mean that the differences in average life expectancy at birth that exist between old and new Member States, of up to 7-9 years, will reduce in the future? Will an EHU bring innovations closer to every hospital bed in Europe and will irrigate “medical deserts” across the Member States?

In all European nations health is one of the most important pillars of well-being. Can you think of a better way for the EU to reach out to its citizens than through health solidarity? Unfortunately, the Commission’s most recent initiatives are unlikely to provide encouraging answers to the health-related expectations of Europeans. The current Commission proposal to build an EHU without treaty changes gives no chances of a strong EHU being built.

A genuine European Health Union would first and foremost to build on the EU Pillar of Social Rights, on the EU and member states commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals, on the European Green Deal, on the Recovery and Resilience Facility, on the  Digital Agenda for Europe. It is now time to combine these  and add to them the concept of a “Health and Well-being Deal”.

I propose some suggested features of the future EHU might have below:

  • The role of health policy in the European Treaties should be reconsidered and strengthened. The objectives that should be kept in mind are more proactive and preventive health measures, more solidarity when it comes to public health activities in Europe, and more cooperation to build resilient health care and cure systems.
  • There should be sufficient capacity to safeguard EU solidarity, as when there are shortages of medical supplies simultaneously facing Member States. The EU should be empowered in some areas to ensure centralized distribution of emergency medicines, ‘orphan drugs’ or medicines for rare cancer treatment, and supplies based on medical needs.
  • A cross-border healthcare directive is not enough. We also need the EU to share some responsibilities in “care and cure” in the areas of rare cancers and rare diseases while preserving subsidiarity as a core principle. We need the European health insurance Fund to cover rare disease and to ensure that the pledge “no one is left behind” is a reality in Europe. No European country is capable, on its own, of guaranteeing universal health coverage for all of the 30 million EU patients suffering from rare cancers or rare diseases, but the EU can do it.

Let us be clear: the challenge is not of making the EU institutions responsible for all health matters in but of finding the right form of integration and cooperation between the EU and its Member States so that they can act more effectively in both “normal” times and in times of pandemic.

One can imagine a range of different scenarios to develop an EHU. If we will follow the existing constraints and legal limits enshrined in the European Treaties, two scenarios can be envisaged:

  • scenario ”a” would utilise existing legal, financial and managerial instruments, improve functioning institutions, and improve the implementation of already-agreed policies. 
  • scenario “b” would see the fin- tuning of existing instruments of health policy in parallel with the development of secondary legislation and establishment of new institutions that can create added value for European health.

By opting for either of these scenarios, Europeans would be restricting the benefits they might obtain from deeper cooperation on health.

The main aim  of the EU and all its main objectives are enforced by Article 3 of the Treaties of the European Union (TEU). Health is not currently included in Article 3; it appears only as a ‘shared competence’ between the EU and the Member States in article 4 of the TFEU in a very limited form: as “common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty”. According to Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the EU shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States in the protection and improvement of human health. Article 168 of the TFEU - which is quite renowned by the health community -  is a development of the legal norms enforced by Articles 4 and  of the TFEU. Some powers are given to the EU over ensuring the safety of sanitary-phytosanitary, drugs, and medical devices.

Following the logic of the TEU, the TFEU is prioritizing the articles that are devoted to the development of an internal market over the articles dealing with other activities of the EU. Development of health care is considered to be important to the EU insofar as it better serves the functioning of the internal market. But Europe is not just the market per se. Europe needs to speak explicitly about good health being an aim of the EU, and about an EHU being a tool that could ensure the good health and longevity of Europeans. The need to speak about good health being an aim of the EU requires to go at a third scenario:

  • scenario “c” sees the status of health policyin the European Treaties being strengthened, with provisions for an EHU incorporated into the TEU and amending the TFEU, giving the EU some responsibility over health policy in very concrete areas while preserving the principle of subsidiarity at the core.

The best choice for Europeans would be to adopt the most ambitious scenario: scenario “c”. This would provide citizens with the opportunity to reap all the benefits that would stem from deeper cooperation over health. Europe lives according to its Treaties, so the demands of its citizens that cooperation in health matters is taken seriously should be enshrined in the TEU.  Europeans need to see a “healthier” face of Article 3 of the TEU. Let us amend part 3 of Article 3, which starts with “The Union shall establish an internal market” by one sentence. “It shall promote universal health coverage by establishing a health union”.

And then let us amend point k) of part 2 of article 4 of the TFEU about shared competence between the EU and its Member States in the area of health and following it to clarify article 168 of TFEU.

The Covid-19 crisis taught us to build solidarity. The response to future cross-border Health Threats could be strengthened by a health solidarity clause amending article 222 of the TFEU – a clause that will work in a similar way as the EU civil protection clause.

Maybe some of us would prefer development to be slow, but without being ambitious there is a risk we will miss a window of opportunity for evolving the EHU beyond the internal market, and beyond a narrow paradigm that does not fit the realities of the twenty-first century.

The citizens-led Conference on the Future of Europe should be very ambitious about taking over Europe.

The former European Commission president Jacques Delors described the EU’s lack of solidarity over its response to the pandemic as a mortal danger to the bloc.

But lack of solidarity in health is also a mortal danger. Let us be inspired by this insight, and let us be brave, building a  strong and genuine EHU.

V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

Pasirengimas Šanchajaus Bendradarbiavimo Organizacijos sveikatos ministrų konferencijai.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.


Dear  Dr Vytenis Andriukaitis,

I will try to reply to your questions related with  the meeting and Nisso will advise on  travel and logistics.

WHO EURO RD was invited to attend  the meeting   and do the welcome speech.

WHO EURO was not asked to  do any technical  presentation.

We have only the general programme of work but  the agenda of the session is missing.  All I have is draft statement and plan of actions that will be discussed during the meeting.

As far as I understood from my discussions with TJK MoH who is charring SCO in 2021 the main focus will be COVID-19.

I am working with communication team on RD statement.  It is not yet clear if  it will be pre-recorded or you will need to  deliver it.

 The main  task for you will be  to advise RD how we could scale up our relationship with SCO in health area.  The participation at the meeting will provide opportunities to discuss this with TJK MOH and also representatives of SCO Secretariat – I hope they will attend.

I am sharing with you  short information document.  

I will be happy to discuss  the mission in more at VC or phone call.

Best regards
Bahtygul

Dr. Bahtygul Karriyeva
Strategic Desk Officer (Strategic Planning)
Division of Country Support, Emergency Preparedness and
Response (CSE)/Intelligence and Strategies for Delivery (ISD)
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe
Copenhagen, Denmark

***
Dear Nisso Mirsalimova, dear Bahtygul Karriyeva,

Thanks a lot for your efforts to find the best way to Dushanbe. I think, from my point of view the most suitable option is to depart from Vilnius through Sankt - Petersburg to Dushanbe on Sunday 27 June. 

May I ask you to inform me about all technical details.

The first question is about visa problems. I have a diplomatic passport, Lithuanian passport and Lithuanian ID, but what about visa. And which passport I need to use.

The second question- I have Miles&More Senator, Star Alliance Gold Brussels airlines card, but it expired on 02.21. May is it possible to extend such card for me. The card Nr. 2220 1321 3296 788, Dr. V. Andriukaitis;

The third question is about restrictions related to COVID19. I am fully vaccinated with Moderna vaccine too shots. Last one on 04.21. I have International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis ( based on International Health Regulation 2005). I used it in my travels to countries, affected by Ebola outbreak. My vaccination with Moderna is indicated in this Certificate. Is it valid now?  Or I need something specific.

And my last question is about assistance from WHO RD side. And about materials and instructions related to my interventions and speeches. 

It would be good to have answers as soon as possible.

Best regards,
Vytenis Andriukaitis





 

V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

Bendradarbiavimo tarp WHO RD ir SCO Memorandumo projektas.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.



V. P. Andriukaičio šeimos archyve – svarbiausių XX ir XXI amžių Lietuvos įvykių atspindžiai

Įvadinės Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio pastabos. 2021 m.

Iš asmeninio Vytenio Povilo Andriukaičio archyvo.

Lt En