First WHO-Recommended Malaria Vaccine: A Milestone in Global Public Health

Malaria is a life-threatening disease with a devastating impact on people’s health worldwide. Despite being preventable and treatable, malaria continues to claim more than 400,000 lives every year, underscoring the urgent need for stronger, more equitable prevention tools.

In 2019 alone, nearly 4 billion people, almost half of the world’s population, were at risk of malaria, with an estimated 229 million cases globally. The disease remains one of the world’s most persistent public health challenges.

The Global Burden of Malaria in Africa

The burden of malaria falls disproportionately on the African continent. In 2019, 94% of all malaria cases and deaths occurred in the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region.

Malaria is a leading cause of childhood illness and death in sub-Saharan Africa. Each year, more than 260,000 African children under the age of five die from malaria, making it one of the deadliest threats to child survival in the region.

The WHO’s Vision for a World Free of Malaria

The WHO’s vision is clear: a world free of malaria. To accelerate progress toward this goal, the WHO introduced the Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016–2030, built around three core pillars:

• Ensuring universal access to malaria prevention, diagnosis, and treatment

• Accelerating efforts toward malaria elimination and attainment of malaria-free status

• Transforming malaria surveillance into a core public health intervention

These pillars are supported by two essential elements: harnessing innovation through research and strengthening enabling health system environments. The WHO urges countries to adopt and expand the implementation of this strategy to prevent malaria deaths and advance elimination.

A Breakthrough Moment for the Malaria Vaccine

In October 2021, the WHO reached a historic milestone by recommending RTS, S/AS01 (RTS,S) as the first malaria vaccine for widespread use among children.

The malaria vaccine is recommended for children living in areas with moderate to high transmission of Plasmodium falciparum, the deadliest malaria parasite globally and the most prevalent in Africa.

How the RTS,S Malaria Vaccine Works

The RTS,S malaria vaccine:

• Requires a four-dose regimen

• Is administered starting from five months of age

• Has been shown to significantly reduce malaria cases and deadly severe malaria among young children

The WHO reports that even in real-world, high-impact childhood vaccination settings, the malaria vaccine reduces severe malaria by approximately 30%, including in areas where insecticide-treated nets are widely used and access to diagnosis and treatment is strong.

Evidence from the WHO Malaria Vaccine Pilot Program

The WHO recommendation was based on results from an ongoing WHO-coordinated pilot program, led by the Ministries of Health of Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi.

Since 2019, the program has:

• Vaccinated more than 800,000 children

• Demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and public health impact of the malaria vaccine when delivered through routine immunization systems

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, stated:

“Using this vaccine on top of existing tools to prevent malaria could save tens of thousands of young lives each year.”

Regulatory and Scientific Milestones

RTS,S is currently the only malaria vaccine to:

• Complete a Phase 3 clinical trial

• Receive a positive scientific opinion from the European Medicines Agency

In October 2021, the WHO shared detailed data from the pilot program and outlined the next steps to integrate the malaria vaccine into broader malaria control strategies worldwide.

The WFPHA Position on the Malaria Vaccine

The World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA), through its International Immunization Policy Taskforce, strongly applauds global efforts to control and eliminate malaria.

The WFPHA Commends:

• The WHO for its leadership in malaria elimination

• The Ministries of Health in Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi for their commitment to the malaria vaccine pilot program

• Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; and Unitaid for financing the pilot initiative

The WFPHA Recommendations for Global Malaria Vaccine Rollout

To ensure the malaria vaccine reaches those who need it most, the WFPHA recommends:

• Immediate use of the malaria vaccine once fully approved by the WHO scientific bodies

• Development of targeted campaigns to promote vaccine uptake

• Sustained financing to ensure equitable access and affordability worldwide

• Robust AEFI (Adverse Events Following Immunization) surveillance as distribution scales

• Ongoing funding aligned with Universal Health Coverage principles

• Continued research and development of more cost-effective and efficacious malaria vaccines, including technologies emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic

• Prioritization of populations in countries with the least resources

A New Hope in the Fight Against Malaria

The first WHO-recommended malaria vaccine represents a turning point in global public health. When used alongside existing malaria prevention and treatment tools, it offers new hope for saving children’s lives, reducing inequities, and accelerating progress toward malaria elimination.

Malaria remains a preventable tragedy. The malaria vaccine is not a standalone solution, but it is a powerful, evidence-based addition to the global fight against one of humanity’s oldest and deadliest diseases.

Waive Vaccine Intellectual Property Rights Now

In the current global pandemic, vaccine equity requires more than supply; it requires fair and timely access to vaccination for all countries, regardless of income level, infrastructure, political context, or stage of economic development. Yet people living in low- and middle-income countries remain far less likely to be vaccinated than those in high-income countries, even when they are in the highest clinical-risk groups or frontline health and care workers.

COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduce severe illness, mortality, symptom duration, and the risk of transmission. Vaccination remains the most effective tool for controlling the pandemic. When virus circulation is not adequately controlled, the risk of new vaccine-resistant variants increases, prolonging the pandemic for everyone.

Achieving global vaccine equity, therefore, depends on urgent structural action, including a decision to waive intellectual property protections on vaccines that currently restrict production and access.

Vaccine Inequity Is a Structural Failure, Not a Supply Problem

Current global delivery mechanisms are necessary but insufficient

For low- and middle-income countries, the primary mechanism for COVID-19 vaccine access is the vaccine pillar of the WHO Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A), specifically COVAX. COVAX forms a central part of the WHO Preparedness and Response Plan for 2021–22 and aims to deliver two billion doses to 98 self-financing countries and 92 of the lowest-income countries.

We commend COVAX for its vision, expertise, and international collaboration. However, it was never intended to be the sole solution for global COVID-19 vaccine provision. Without complementary measures, particularly those that address production constraints, COVAX alone cannot close the equity gap.

High-income countries must meet their existing commitments

High-income countries have committed to delivering their fair share of vaccines, yet to date, only Norway has fulfilled this obligation. Delays and shortfalls undermine global vaccination efforts and perpetuate inequitable access.

Donation-based models cannot deliver sustainable vaccine equity

Relying on vaccine donations from wealthy countries is neither sustainable nor sufficient to meet global demand. Even if all pledges were honoured on time, this approach leaves most of the world dependent on surplus supply. It also creates a risk of “vaccine pollution,” including waste, expired doses, or the dumping of near-expiry products in low- and middle-income countries and international programs.

Why Waiving Vaccine Intellectual Property Is Essential

Equity of capability, not charity

Low- and middle-income countries have extensive experience delivering mass vaccination programs and conducting vaccination trials in challenging conditions. Assertions that these countries cannot manufacture vaccines to international quality standards are unfounded and reflect neo-colonial and paternalistic assumptions. India, for example, is the world’s largest vaccine producer.

Commercial protectionism by major pharmaceutical companies, supported by some governments, has reinforced a narrative that limits local production capacity. To correct this imbalance, governments must waive intellectual property rights on vaccines that restrict technology transfer and scale-up.

Export restrictions further constrain global access

Several countries, including the United States, China, Japan, and South Korea, currently maintain export restrictions on vaccines and/or essential raw materials. These restrictions disrupt global supply chains and disproportionately affect vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries.

Public health priorities, not commercial interests, should guide decisions on vaccine retention and export. Removing unwarranted export restrictions is critical to maintaining uninterrupted global vaccine production.

Global production capacity must expand beyond emergency measures

Pandemic vaccination should not rely on ad-hoc donations or temporary coalitions. While there is sufficient global capacity to distribute vaccines immediately, the current system lacks a scalable, geographically distributed supply chain capable of responding to ongoing and future pandemics.

Optimizing alternative approaches (such as donations, improved logistics, voluntary licensing, or regulatory concessions) without addressing intellectual property barriers will not deliver vaccine coverage equivalent to that of high-income countries before at least the end of 2022.

There are enough vaccine doses to fully vaccinate everyone. Supply remains artificially constrained because the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement allows a small number of pharmaceutical companies to monopolise production and control global supply chains. This is why the decision to waive intellectual property rights on vaccines is central to achieving timely and equitable access.

The Case for a TRIPS Waiver Now

A TRIPS waiver enables local production and faster access

Implementing a Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) waiver is essential to allow more countries to produce vaccines locally and respond effectively to public health needs. The proposal is both achievable and legally grounded in the Doha Declaration of 2001, which affirms the right of World Trade Organization (WTO) members to use TRIPS flexibilities to protect public health and ensure access to medicines for all—including vaccines.

A decision to waive vaccine intellectual property is consistent with international law and existing WTO provisions.

Commercial protectionism has no place in a global health emergency

Public funding has played a substantial role in vaccine research, development, and deployment. In this context, continued commercial protectionism is indefensible. A TRIPS waiver does not eliminate compensation for manufacturers; companies can still receive fair payment for their products and expertise.

Allowing companies to set prices that are unaffordable for many people worldwide fuels public distrust and strengthens vaccine hesitancy narratives. Waiving vaccine intellectual property rights helps governments and manufacturers address these concerns and restore public confidence.

The TRIPS waiver is a step toward stronger multilateral solutions

A TRIPS waiver is not a permanent solution, but it is an essential step toward building more effective and equitable multilateral partnerships. It would expand global manufacturing capacity and strengthen the collective response to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Longer-term reforms to the intellectual property system must follow.

Reforming the Future Intellectual Property Framework for Vaccines

Structural change is required for all current and future SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. More permanent solutions should be pursued through the proposed Global Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness, to be discussed at the World Health Assembly Special Session in November 2021. Implementation will require coordinated action through the United Nations and relevant international bodies, including the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization.

Conclusion: Global Coverage Determines Global Safety

Delays in achieving adequate global COVID-19 vaccination coverage will prolong the pandemic for all countries and increase the risk of new, high-consequence variants. The evidence is clear: we will not be free of this virus until we are all free of it.

The decision to waive vaccine intellectual property is not only a legal and economic issue—it is a public health imperative.

About this statement
This text summarizes the main arguments from the full statement on the proposed waiver of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and related vaccine equity issues.

Written by Alison McCallum, Abbe Brown, Meri Koivusalo, and John Middleton for the Association of Schools of Public Health in the European Region (ASPHER) COVID-19 Task Force, the Global Network for Academic Public Health, and the World Federation of Public Health Associations.

The Global Network for Academic Public Health and WFPHA have issued a statement in support of waiving intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines to increase global vaccine equity.

Nutrition, Alcohol, and Environmental Impact Labels Must Protect Public Interests, Not Market Harmful Foods

Why Nutrition, Alcohol, and Environmental Labels Matter

Since 2016, a United Nations–mandated body responsible for setting international food trade standards has been negotiating global guidelines to help governments better inform consumers and reduce diet-related disease. These discussions focus on front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) and increasingly include alcohol warning labels and environmental impact labelling.

International public interest groups urge that these standards prioritize public health, environmental sustainability, and consumer protection, rather than facilitating the marketing of foods and beverages that harm people and the planet.

The Role of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL)

The Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) develops international standards that, while formally voluntary, function in practice as presumptive ceiling standards under global trade rules.

• Countries that exceed Codex standards may be required to provide additional scientific justification

• Such justifications can be challenged by trading partners

• As a result, Codex standards significantly influence national policy space

This makes Codex negotiations critically important for public health, alcohol regulation, and environmental protection.

Global Health and Environmental Impacts of Food and Alcohol Consumption

Diet-Related Disease Burden

According to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) Global Burden of Disease study:

• Diets high in sodium, saturated and trans fats, added sugars, processed and red meat

• And low in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and polyunsaturated fats

were estimated to cause:

• 8 million deaths worldwide in 2019

• 188 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)

Alcohol-Related Harm

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that:

• Excess alcohol consumption causes approximately 3 million deaths annually

• Alcohol is associated with more than 200 diseases and injuries, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders

Young people are disproportionately affected, with alcohol accounting for:

• 19% of deaths among ages 15–19

• 23.3% of deaths among ages 20–24

Food Systems and Climate Change

According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

• 21–37% of global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to food systems

• Climate change poses severe risks to food security and nutrition

Global Approaches to Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL)

Governments worldwide are experimenting with diverse front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems, including:

Warning Label Systems

• Chile’s black “stop sign” warning labels

  • Adapted by Peru, Uruguay, Israel, and Mexico

• Designed to alert consumers to high levels of sodium, sugar, and unhealthy fats

Interpretive Rating Systems

• United Kingdom Traffic Light Labels

• Australia’s Health Star Rating (½ to 5 stars)

• France’s Nutri-Score (A to E)

  • Now voluntarily adopted in multiple European countries

Evidence increasingly supports the effectiveness of these systems, though no single model fits all populations or contexts, particularly in low-income settings with undernutrition challenges.

Trade Pressure and Policy Interference

Before Codex negotiations began in 2016:

• The United States, the European Union, and Canada used diplomatic channels to pressure early adopters of FOPNL

• Countries targeted included Chile, Peru, Indonesia, and Thailand

Within Europe, even voluntary measures such as the UK’s traffic light system faced legal challenges under trade law.

Alcohol Labelling: A Public Health Imperative

Many countries already:

• Prohibit alcohol sales entirely, or

• Require disclosure of alcohol by volume and health risks

Evidence shows that health literacy around alcohol risks remains dangerously low, despite alcohol being a leading contributor to:

• Cancer (29% of alcohol-attributable deaths in Europe)

• Liver cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease, injuries, and tuberculosis

There is no known safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs) can occur at any stage of gestation.

Public Interest Recommendations to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling

Building on a joint statement made at the 2019 pre-COVID Codex session, public interest groups call for the following reforms:

1. Mandatory Nutrition, Alcohol, and Environmental Labelling

Voluntary labelling has consistently failed due to strong commercial incentives to omit or distort information. Mandatory labelling is essential to ensure accuracy and consumer protection.

2. Strong Conflict-of-Interest Safeguards

Food and alcohol corporations (and the organizations or researchers they fund) should not serve on advisory bodies responsible for developing health or environmental labelling standards.

3. Protect Policy Innovation and Flexibility

Codex guidance must enable, not constrain, national innovation in evidence-based labelling approaches.

4. Prevent the “Halo Effect” on Risky Products

Governments must retain authority to:

• Prohibit positive endorsements on harmful products

• Prevent misleading health or sustainability claims on alcohol and breast-milk substitutes

5. Establish Global Guidance for Environmental Impact Labelling

Codex should initiate a process for mandatory eco-labelling, similar to nutrition labelling, to support:

• Lower greenhouse gas emissions

• Reduced pesticide and water use

• Climate-resilient food systems

Clear international guidance would help prevent the misuse of trade rules to block legitimate environmental action.

6. Harmonized Alcohol Health Warning Labels

Standardized alcohol labelling would:

• Improve health literacy

• Increase awareness of cancer and pregnancy risks

• Reduce alcohol-related harm and public health costs

Warnings against alcohol use during pregnancy or while trying to conceive are particularly urgent to prevent FASDs.

Codex Negotiations: Who Participates and Why It Matters

Typically, approximately 250 representatives attend CCFL negotiations, including:

• Delegates from 60 national governments

• Dozens of food and alcohol industry associations

• A small number of officially recognized health and consumer organizations

The Government of Canada, which has hosted and chaired CCFL since the 1960s, hosted the 2021 virtual meeting.

Codex Standards Must Serve People and the Planet

Nutrition, alcohol, and environmental impact labels are not marketing tools; they are public health and environmental safeguards. Codex standards must protect governments’ ability to act in the public interest and ensure that consumers receive clear, accurate, and meaningful information about the products they consume.

Functioning of the International Health Regulations During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The International Health Regulations (IHR), which entered into force in 2007, were designed to strengthen global capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to public health threats. Framed as a legally binding agreement among the World Health Organization (WHO) Member States, the IHR aims to support national preparedness while enabling coordinated international alert and response to health emergencies.

During the prolonged and unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, the effectiveness of the IHR has been widely questioned. Critics argued that the Regulations constrained rapid action and failed to keep pace with the scale and speed of the crisis. However, findings from the Review Committee on the Functioning of the IHR (2005) during the COVID-19 Response offer a more nuanced assessment, shifting the focus from regulatory design to implementation failures.

This article reflects on those findings and the implications for strengthening global health governance, drawing on the work of the IHR Review Committee, which brought together 20 experts with diverse public health expertise from around the world.

International Health Regulations and COVID-19: What Went Wrong in Practice

The IHR Review Committee found that the Regulations themselves remain fundamentally sound and appropriate for managing public health emergencies. Rather than structural deficiencies within the IHR, the COVID-19 response revealed persistent shortcomings in how the Regulations were applied by Member States and operationalized by the WHO.

Many countries implemented the IHR only partially, lacked sufficient awareness of their obligations, or chose to disregard specific requirements. At the same time, the WHO did not consistently make full use of the authority granted under the IHR, both in letter and in spirit. These combined gaps significantly weakened the global response during the early and most critical phases of the pandemic.

Within its mandate, explicitly focused on IHR-related aspects of the COVID-19 response, the Review Committee identified a collective failure across three interrelated domains:

Compliance, Accountability, and Empowerment

Inadequate compliance with IHR obligations, particularly those related to preparedness and core public health capacities, contributed to COVID-19 evolving into a protracted global crisis. The Committee underscored that IHR implementation must be elevated to the highest levels of government and embedded within a whole-of-government approach to health security.

Central to this effort is the strengthening of IHR national focal points. These entities must be institutionally positioned, adequately resourced, and granted sufficient authority to engage across sectors during emergencies. Without robust national legal frameworks aligned with the IHR, effective preparedness and response remain out of reach.

To address persistent gaps, the Committee highlighted the need for stronger review and accountability mechanisms. Periodic, obligatory assessments of national IHR capacities, similar in spirit to universal periodic reviews in other international governance frameworks, could play a critical role in improving compliance and transparency.

Early Alert, Notification, and Response

Timely alert and response are essential to triggering meaningful global action. Yet during COVID-19, early warning systems did not function as intended. Initial reporting from several countries was incomplete, and delays in recognizing human-to-human transmission, including asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread, undermined early containment efforts.

Despite the WHO issuing risk assessments, technical guidance, and early warnings, including the declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, many national responses were slow or insufficient. The Review Committee concluded that introducing additional alert levels would not have resolved these challenges. Instead, more consistent adherence to existing IHR obligations could have enabled faster, more decisive action.

The Committee also emphasized that trust, collaboration, and routine engagement between countries and the WHO, outside crisis periods, are essential to improving early alert and response. Strengthening established networks and information-sharing mechanisms remains a priority.

Political Will and Sustainable Financing

Effective implementation of the International Health Regulations depends on sustained political commitment and predictable financing at national and international levels. The Review Committee noted that resources allocated to IHR implementation, including within the WHO itself, remain limited and inconsistent.

As of early 2021, the WHO’s IHR-related functions were supported by approximately 200 full-time staff equivalents, fewer than the staffing levels of some national public health institutes. This imbalance highlights the need for Member States to provide the WHO with a stronger mandate and more stable funding to fulfil its global health protection role.

Strengthening the IHR for Future Health Emergencies

In April 2021, the Review Committee issued 40 recommendations across ten thematic areas to strengthen IHR implementation. These include enhancing legal preparedness, improving data sharing and risk assessment, clarifying responsibilities related to travel measures, advancing digitalization and communication, and reinforcing compliance and accountability frameworks.

The Committee also recognized the potential value of developing a global, legally binding convention on pandemic preparedness and response. Such a framework could complement the IHR by addressing gaps related to equitable access to countermeasures, global supply chains, and the management of zoonotic risks.

Moving from Lessons to Action

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that global health security is only as strong as the collective commitment to uphold shared rules and responsibilities. The functioning of the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that the challenge lies not in the absence of guidance but in the failure to fully implement what is already agreed upon.

The evidence is clear, the recommendations are well established, and the path forward is known. What is now required is decisive action by Member States and by the WHO to translate the lessons of COVID-19 into a more resilient, accountable, and effective global health system.

Protecting Our Future: Why the U.S. Childhood Vaccine Schedule Overhaul Risks Global Health

The World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA) has issued a critical statement regarding the announced changes to the United States childhood immunization schedule. Our message is clear: Children’s health is not a policy experiment.

Childhood immunization schedules are among the most rigorously tested and monitored public health interventions in history. Built on decades of scientific evidence and comprehensive safety surveillance, these schedules have saved millions of lives. Altering them without a transparent, evidence-based justification puts child health and public trust at serious risk.

The Hidden Costs of Disrupting Proven Immunization Schedules

Vaccines do more than protect individuals; they safeguard entire communities. Disrupting established schedules can lead to delayed vaccinations, renewed outbreaks of preventable diseases, and avoidable hospitalizations. History shows that even modest declines in coverage can lead to rapid, severe consequences for the global population.

The Looming Equity Crisis

The proposed overhaul will not affect all children equally. Those from low-income families, rural areas, and racial or ethnic minority communities will bear the heaviest burden. In the U.S., vaccination rates already show disparities; for example, data have historically demonstrated that children living below the federal poverty level often have lower vaccination coverage rates for key vaccines than those at or above it.

Professor Raman Bedi, President-elect of the WFPHA and Emeritus Professor at King’s College London, warns:

“I am profoundly concerned that these changes will disproportionately and negatively impact the marginalized and vulnerable. When public health policy wavers, it is always those with the least who suffer the most.”

Global Implications and the Erosion of Trust

U.S. immunization policy exerts a profound influence worldwide. Decisions made domestically shape international debates and impact vaccine confidence far beyond U.S. borders. Misinformation is currently running rampant, and policy changes that appear politicized risk fundamentally undermining confidence in vaccine safety.

As Professor Michael Moore, Chair of the WFPHA International Immunization Policy Taskforce, emphasizes: “Undermining proven vaccine schedules is not innovation—it is gambling with children’s lives.”

A Call to Prioritize Scientific Integrity

The WFPHA urges U.S. decision-makers to keep children’s health and equity at the center of immunization policy.

We can do this with three actions:

• Uphold Scientific Integrity: Policy must remain grounded in comprehensive safety surveillance.
• Protect Public Trust: Transparent justification is required for any change to established medical protocols.
• Focus on Equity: Ensure that policy changes do not widen existing health disparities.

The consequences of failure will be measured in preventable disease and shattered confidence; impacts that will fall most heavily on those already facing the most significant barriers to health. Once trust is weakened, restoration is painfully difficult and its children who pay the price.

Let’s prevent that.

Read the original call to action here.

Statement on the Global Public Health Crisis of Military Aggression: In Defense of Health, Peace, and Democracy

The World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA) expresses its profound alarm and unequivocal condemnation of the escalating pattern of unilateral military aggressions by the United States government.

These actions, ranging from the recent military operation in Venezuela and airstrikes in Nigeria, to the devastating attacks on critical infrastructure in Yemen and continued strikes in Syria following the fall of the Assad regime, constitute a clear and systematic violation of international law.

Military Escalation and the Threat to Global Sovereignty

The WFPHA is deeply concerned that these interventions serve as a dangerous precursor to further escalations against Iran, which we already saw last year. We denounce the unprecedented threats of annexation and intervention directed toward Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland.

Such rhetoric and action under the “Don-roe Doctrine” undermine the foundational principles of sovereignty and the UN Charter.

The Impact of War as a Public Health Catastrophe

Military actions in any form pose severe risks to public health systems, disrupt essential health services, and cause preventable suffering among people in vulnerable situations. These are not merely political acts; they are public health catastrophes that threaten the safety and well-being of global populations.

Our Call to Action: Protecting Health and Human Rights

The WFPHA calls for the following immediate measures:

• Immediate cessation of hostilities and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions.
• Protection of sovereignty by respecting the territorial integrity of all nations.
• Protection of civilian populations and critical health infrastructure.
• Adherence to international law and human rights.
• Safe passage for humanitarian assistance and medical supplies to conflict zones.
• Constructive dialogue among all parties to resolve differences peacefully.

Prioritizing Global Security and Health Equity

We urge the international community and relevant bodies to prioritize diplomatic engagement and peaceful resolution over geopolitical interests.

Public health organizations worldwide stand ready to support efforts that protect health systems. We must not allow the normalization of aggression to dismantle the global security architecture that protects human life. The health and well-being of civilian populations must remain paramount in any resolution to this crisis.