Topic: Infrastructure

Internet Governance Forum

Post date March 1, 2022

Acronym: IGF

Established: 2006

Address: Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Website: https://www.intgovforum.org

Stakeholder group: International and regional organisations

The IGF provides the most comprehensive coverage of digital policy issues on the global level. The IGF Secretariat in Geneva coordinates both the planning of IGF annual meetings (working together with the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the wider IGF community) and a series of intersessional activities (run all year long). These activities could be summarised in three ‘multi’ initiatives:

Multistakeholder participation: It involves governments, business, civil society, the technical community, academia, and other actors who affect or are affected by digital policy This diversity is reflected in IGF processes, events, and consultations.

Multidisciplinary coverage: It relates to addressing policy issues from technological, legal, security, human rights, economic, development, and sociocultural perspectives. For example, data, as a governance issue, is addressed from standardisation, e-commerce, privacy, and security perspectives.

Multilevel approach: It spans IGF deliberations from the local level to the global level, through a network of over 165 national, subregional, and regional IGF (as of November 2023). They provide context for discussions on digital policy like the real-life impact of digitalisation on policy, economic, social, and cultural fabric of local communities. The IGF Secretariat supports such initiatives (which are independent) and coordinates the participation of the overall network.

The IGF ecosystem converges around the annual IGF, which is attended by thousands of participants. The last few IGFs include Paris (2018), Berlin (2019), online edition due to the pandemic (2020), Katowice (2021), Addis Ababa (2022), and Kyoto (2023), which engaged over 11,000 participants, and more than 1,000 speakers in over 300 sessions.

The intersessional work includes best practice forums (on issues such as cybersecurity, local content, data and new technologies, and gender and access); dynamic coalitions (on issues such as community connectivity, network neutrality, accessibility and disability, and child safety online etc.); policy networks (on AI, environment, meaningful access and Internet fragmentation); and other projects such as Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) (which ran between 2015 and 2018) as well as a number of capacity development activities.

IGF mandate

The IGF mandate was outlined in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS, November 2005). It was renewed for another 10 years by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on 16 December 2015, (70/125).

The main functions of the IGF are specified in Article 72 of the Tunis Agenda. The mandate of the Forum is to:

Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability, and development of the internet.

Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview.
Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard, make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific, and technical communities.
Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries.
Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and where appropriate, make recommendations.
Contribute to capacity building for internet governance in developing countries, drawing on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in internet governance processes.
Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical internet resources.
Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
Publish its proceedings.

In fulfilling its mandate, the Forum is institutionally supported by the UN Secretariat for the Internet Governance Forum placed with the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Its working modalities also include MAG and most recently the Leadership Panel, both appointed by the UN Secretary-General.

Digital policy issues

Until 2019, IGF annual meetings used to host sessions tackling a wide range of digital policy issues (for instance, IGF 2018 had eight themes: cybersecurity, trust, and privacy; development, innovation, and economic issues; digital inclusion and accessibility; human rights, gender, and youth; emerging technologies; evolution of internet governance; media and content; and technical and operational issues). In 2019, in an effort to bring more focus within the IGF, the MAG decided (considering community input) to structure the IGF programme around a limited number of tracks: security, safety, stability, and resilience; data governance; and digital inclusion. This approach was kept for IGF 2020, which saw four thematic tracks: data, environment, inclusion, and trust. The thematic approach did not mean that the IGF saw some digital policy issues as being less relevant than others, but rather that it encouraged discussions at the intersection of multiple issues. The Geneva Internet Platform (GIP) Digital Watch hybrid reporting (IGF 2023) illustrates this trend, showing that the IGF discussed a wide range of policy issues (across all seven internet governance baskets of issues) within the limited number of thematic tracks.

The leadership panel

In line with the IGF mandate and as recommended in the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, the UN Secretary-General established the IGF Leadership Panel as a strategic, empowered, multistakeholder body, to address urgent, strategic issues, and highlight Forum discussions and possible follow-up actions to promote greater impact and dissemination of IGF discussions.

More specifically, the Panel provides strategic inputs and advice on the IGF; promotes the IGF and its outputs; supports both high-level and at-large stakeholder engagement in the IGF and IGF fundraising efforts; exchanges IGF outputs with other stakeholders and relevant forums; and feeds input from these decision-makers and forums to the IGF’s agenda-setting process, leveraging relevant MAG expertise.

The 15-member Panel with ex-officios meet at least three times a year in person, in addition to regular online meetings.

Future of meetings

Since its first meeting in Athens (2006), the IGF has been a pioneer in online deliberation and hybrid meetings. In addition to individual online participation, the IGF has encouraged the development of a network of remote hubs where participants meet locally while following online deliberations from the global IGF. In this way the IGF has created a unique interplay between local and global deliberations through the use of technology. For hybrid meetings delivered in situ and online, the IGF developed the function of remote moderator, who ensures that there is smooth interplay between online and in situ discussions.

The 19th annual IGF meeting will be hosted by the Government of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh in December 2024. The 2025 host is yet to be announced.

Social media channels

Facebook @IGF – Internet Governance Forum

Flickr @IGF

Instagram @intgovforum

LinkedIn @intgovforum

X @intgovforum

YouTube @Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

United Nations Human Rights Council

Post date March 1, 2022

Acronym: UNHRC

Established: 2006

Address: Palais Wilson 52, rue des Pâquis, CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland

Website: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspx

Stakeholder group: International and regional organisations

The Human Rights Council is a United Nations intergovernmental body whose mandate is to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe, and to make recommendations on cases of human rights violations. The Council is made up of 47 member states, as elected by the UN General Assembly.

The Council works closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), headed by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who is the principal human rights official of the United Nation.

Freedom of expression and privacy in the online space are two of the issues covered by the Council in its activities. These have been discussed at UNHRC sessions, and covered in resolutions adopted by the Council, as well as in reports elaborated by the special rapporteurs appointed by the Council. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has issued reports on issues such as: the use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age; states’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet; etc. The Special Rapporteur on the righ to privacy has within its mandate the responsibility to make recommendations for the promotion and protection of the right to privacy, including in connection with challenges arising from new technologies.

International Committee of the Red Cross

Post date March 1, 2022

Acronym: ICRC

Established: 1863

Address: 19 Avenue de la paix, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland

Website: https://www.icrc.org

Stakeholder group: International and regional organisations

Established in 1863, the ICRC is an independent international humanitarian organisation headquartered in Geneva. It defends and promotes the respect of international humanitarian law (IHL) and is dedicated to protecting the lives and dignity of victims of war and to providing assistance. Along these lines, it cooperates with governments, the private sector, and other entities affected by international and internal armed conflict and violence.

Together with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and 192 individual national societies, the ICRC makes up the so-called International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Digital activities

Digitalisation is increasingly present in the context of armed conflict and violence. On one hand, affected populations are in demand for digital tools, which humanitarian organisations need to provide in a responsible manner. On the other hand, states use cyber operations as part of warfare with humans affected by the consequences of such operations and other digital risks. To this end, humanitarian organisations also use digital tools to improve their operations. The ICRC addresses the implications of technology, which are multifold and range from data protection for humanitarian actions to the application of IHL to cyber operations in armed conflict. We host expert and intergovernmental discussions and have developed a number of (digital) tools to help improve awareness and understanding of IHL and relevant standards. The ICRC cooperates with other organisations on digital policy issues.

Digital policy issues

Artificial intelligence

The ICRC has explored the impact of AI tools in armed conflict, in particular their use by armed actors. In a document titled Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Armed Conflict: A Human-Centred Approach (2019, revised 2021), we argue: ‘Any new technology of warfare must be used, and must be capable of being used, in compliance with existing rules of international humanitarian law.’ The document touches on the use of AI and machine learning (ML) technologies capable of controlling physical military hardware. It argues that from a humanitarian perspective, AWS are of particular concern given that humans may not be able to control such weapons or the resulting use of force, and AI-controlled AWS would exacerbate these risks. The ICRC has urged states to adopt new international rules on AWS. The position paper also emphasises the potential for AI to exacerbate the risks to civilians and civilian infrastructure posed by cyber and information operations, as well as changing the nature of military decision-making in armed conflict. The ICRC calls for a human-centred approach to the application of AI in armed conflict that preserves human judgement and jointly with the United Nations Secretary-General, ICRC’s president is calling for establishing new prohibitions and restrictions on AWS. The question has been further explored in other reports, such as Autonomy, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics: Technical Aspects of Human Control (2019).

Cyber operations during armed conflict

The use of cyber operations during armed conflict is a reality today and is likely to increase in future. Through bilateral confidential dialogue, expert discussions, participation in intergovernmental processes, and constant monitoring and analysis, the ICRC is raising awareness of the potential human cost of cyber operations and the application of IHL to cyber operations during armed conflict. Our efforts on this matter date back over two decades. Ever since, the ICRC has held the view that IHL limits cyber operations during armed conflict just as it limits the use of any other weapon, means and methods of warfare in an armed conflict, whether new or old.

Over the years, the ICRC has been actively involved in global policy discussions on cyber-related issues, including those held within the UN (various Groups of Governmental Experts (GGEs) and the Open-Ended Working Groups (OEWGs)). In addition, we convene regional consultations among government experts on how IHL applies to cyber operations, and global expert meetings, such as the potential human cost of cyber operations and avoiding civilian harm from military cyber operations during armed conflicts. Our legal views on how IHL applies to cyber operations during armed conflict are found in a 2019 position paper that was sent to all UN member states in the context of the different UN-mandated processes on information and communications technology (ICT) security. The ICRC explores innovative solutions, such as a digital emblem, to protect medical and humanitarian missions in cyberspace.

Recently we have focused on non-state actors such as civilians and technological companies getting more and more involved in cyber operations. We first issued three documents. The first focuses on the growing trend of civilians at large getting involved in digital operations and the related risks. The second focuses on when might digital tech companies become targetable in war. And last and more specifically on hacking, we published a paper called 8 Rules for “Civilian Hackers” During War, and 4 Obligations for States to Restrain Them.

‘Protection’ in the digital agae The ICRC deals with privacy and data protection within its mandate and context of IHL. In this Atlas, following the Digital Watch Observatory taxonomy, privacy and data protection are part of the human rights basket.

Without undermining the positive impact technology can bring in conflict, including enhancing access to life-saving information and potentially minimising collateral damage, protection work must consider the risks in the digital age. In other words, it must encompass the protection of the rights of people when their lives intersect with the digital sphere. This question remains under-regarded and a blog post tries to shed light on this grey area.

The ICRC puts a special emphasis on the impact of misinformation and disinformation as they can increase people’s exposure to risk and vulnerabilities. For example, if displaced people in need of humanitarian assistance are given intentionally misleading information about life-saving services and resources, they can be misdirected away from help and towards harm.

Hate speech, meanwhile, contributes directly or indirectly to endangering civilian populations’ safety or dignity. For example, when online hate speech calls for violence against a minority group, it can contribute to psychological and social harm through harassment, defamation, and intimidation.

These issues have been tackled in a document we published in 2021 called Harmful Information.

Misinformation and disinformation can also impact humanitarian organisations’ ability to operate in certain areas, potentially leaving the needs of people affected by armed conflict or other violence unmet. When false and manipulated information spreads, it can erode trust within communities and damage the reputation of humanitarian operations.

For the ICRC, whose work is founded on trust, the spread of disinformation, especially where tensions are high, could quickly lead to humanitarian personnel being unable to leave their offices, distribute live-saving assistance, visit detainees, or bring news to people who have lost contact with a family member.

Ultimately, it is important also to note that information operations have limits under IHL!

Outer space

Space systems have been employed for military purposes since the dawn of the space era. As the role of these systems in military operations during armed conflicts increases, so too does the likelihood of their being targeted, with a significant risk of harm to civilians and civilian objects on Earth and in space. This is because technology enabled by space systems permeates most aspects of civilian life, making the potential consequences of attacks on space systems a matter of humanitarian concern. Find out more in this blog called War, Law and Outer Space: Pathways to Reduce the Human Cost of Military Space Operations.

Privacy and data protection

The ICRC plays an active role in regard to privacy and data protection in the context of humanitarian action. It has a data protection framework compliant with international data protection standards that aims to protect individuals from a humanitarian standpoint. The framework consists of ICRC rules on personal data protection, which were revised in 2020 in response to the rapid development of digital technologies, while supervisory and control mechanisms are overseen by an independent data protection commission and a data protection officer. In 2019, the ICRC spearheaded the adoption of a resolution on Restoring Family Links While Respecting Privacy, Including as it Relates to Personal Data Protection at the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. In 2022, we pushed for the adoption of a resolution on Safeguarding Humanitarian Data at the Council of Delegates of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Despite the wide range of data sources employed and dealt with by the ICRC, specific attention is dedicated to biometric data, which is often used in forensics and the restoration of family links. To manage this highly sensitive information and to ensure the responsible deployment of new technologies (including new biometric identification techniques), the ICRC has adopted a Biometrics Policy, which sets out the roles and responsibilities of the ICRC and defines the legitimate bases and specified purposes for the processing of biometric data.

Data protection is also addressed by the ICRC Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Action. The Handbook provides suggestions as to how current data protection principles apply to humanitarian organisations and builds on existing regulations, working procedures, and practices. The second edition specifically provides guidance on the technical aspects of data protection by design and by default and covers technological security measures. In addition, through dedicated chapters, it addresses the potential and risks of digital technology such as blockchain, AI, digital identity, and connectivity for data protection in humanitarian action.

The ICRC has argued in favour of the digitalisation of the Geneva Conventions and on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of these very treaties and additional protocols, released an IHL digital app. The app provides access to over 75 treaties including the Geneva Conventions, and allows users to read through the content and familiarise themselves with the text. The ICRC has a number of databases on IHL, including its customary IHL database and the ICRC national implementation database.

Digital tools

Research and development

In 2022, the ICRC opened a Delegation for Cyberspace in Luxembourg, which serves as a safe and secure space to do due diligence research and develop and test solutions and ideas to prepare the ground for the support, protection, and deployment of digital services to affected people on a global scale. It will also further explore what it means to be a digital stakeholder in a manner compatible with its mandate; operational modalities; and the principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality.

Resources

The ICRC’s Law and Policy blog provides a large number of short pieces on cyber operations, featuring tech expert, legal, and policy perspectives.

Online learning is also used by the ICRC to promote the implementation of IHL. In 2019, we launched an e-learning course entitled Introduction to International Humanitarian Law aimed at non-legal practitioners, policymakers, and other professionals who are interested in the basics of IHL. Other online courses are available through the ICRC training centre as well as e-briefings which are available in the e-briefing library.

The ICRC maintains an online training centre and an app with all ICRC publications in English and French.

Social media channels

Facebook @ICRC

Instagram @ICRC

LinkedIn @ICRC

TikTok @ICRC

X @ICRC

YouTube @ICRC

World Health Organization

Post date March 1, 2022

Acronym: WHO

Established: 1948

Address: Av. Appia 20 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland

Website: https://www.who.int/en/

Stakeholder group: International and regional organisations

WHO is a specialized agency of the UN whose role is to direct and coordinate2 international health within the UN system. As a member state organization, its main areas of work include health systems, the promotion of health, non-communicable diseases, communicable diseases, corporate services, preparedness, and surveillance and response.

WHO assists countries in coordinating multi-sectoral efforts by governments and partners (including bi- and multilateral meetings, funds and foundations, civil society organizations, and the private sector) to attain their health objectives and support their national health policies and strategies.

Data and digital activities

WHO is harnessing the power of digital technologies and health innovation to accelerate global attainment of health and well-being. It uses digital technology intensively in its development of activities, ranging from building public health infrastructure in developing countries and immunization to dealing with disease outbreaks.

WHO has strengthened its approach to data by ensuring this strategic asset has two divisions: (1) the Division of Data, Analytics and Delivery for Impact. This has helped strengthen data governance by promoting sound data principles and accountability mechanisms, as well as ensuring that the necessary policies and tools are in place that can be used by all three levels of the organization and can be adopted by member states. Digital health and innovation are high on WHO’s agenda; it is recognized for its role in strengthening health systems through the application of digital health technologies for consumers/ people and healthcare providers as part of achieving its vision of health for all. (2) WHO also established the new Department of Digital Health and Innovation in 2019 within its Science Division. Particular attention is paid to promoting global collaboration and advancing the transfer of knowledge on digital health; advancing the implementation of national digital health strategies; strengthening the governance for digital health at the global, regional, and national levels; and advocating for people-centred health systems enabled by digital health. These strategic objectives have been developed in consultation with member states throughout 2019 and 2020 and will be submitted for adoption to the upcoming 2021 World Health Assembly.

The Division of Data Analytics and Delivery for Impact and the Department of Digital Health and Innovation work closely together to strengthen links between data and digital issues, as well as data governance efforts. Digital health technologies, standards, and protocols enable health systems to integrate the exchange of health data within the health system. Coupled with data governance, ethics, and public health data standards, digital health and innovation enable the generation of new evidence and knowledge through research and innovation and inform health policy through public health analysis.

More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated WHO’s digital response, collaboration, and innovation in emergencies. Some examples include collaborating to use artificial intelligence (AI) and data science in analyzing and delivering information in response to the COVID-19 ‘infodemic’ (i.e. overflow of information, including misinformation, in an acute health event, which prevents people from accessing reliable information about how to protect themselves); promoting cybersecurity in the health system, including hospitals and health facilities; learning from using AI, data science, digital health, and innovation in social science research, disease modelling, and simulations, as well as supporting the epidemiological response to the pandemic; and producing vaccines and preparing for the equitable allocation and distribution of vaccines.

Digital policy issues

WHO is a leader among Geneva-based international organizations in the use of social media, through its awareness-raising of health-related issues. It was awarded first prize at the Geneva Engage Awards in 2016, and second prize in 2017.

The WHO/International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health (WHO/ITU FG-AI4H) works to establish a standardized assessment framework for the evaluation of AI-based methods for health, diagnosis, triage, or treatment decisions.

Data and artificial intelligence

The response to COVID-19 reinforced the centrality of data and AI for the health sector and WHO’s activities. Data and AI policies are covered by the following instruments:

Data policy: Guideline on data integrity
Data standardization: Resolution WHA66.24: eHealth Standardization and Interoperability (May 2013)
Data sharing during health emergencies: Policy Statement on Data Sharing by WHO in the Context of Public Health Emergencies (as of 13 April 2013) (May 2016) | Best Practices for Sharing Information through Data Platforms: Establishing the Principles (April 2016)
Data and member states: Text for Inclusion in Data Collection Forms in all Data Collection Tools (Paper-based, Electronic, or Other) used by WHO to Collect data from Member States
Data sharing: FAQs on WHO Data Sharing Policy in Non-Emergency Contexts | Policy on the Use and Sharing of Data Collected in Member States by WHO Outside the Context of Public Health Emergencies (August 2017) | WHO Statement on Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results (April 2015).

Digital standards

Integra tion of Health Information Exchange (HIE): WHO collaborates with health information exchange standardisation bodies and organisations, such as HIE and Health Level Seven International (HL7®), to promote sustainable investment in interoperable digital health technologies and systems. Digital health technologies, standards, and protocols enable health systems to integrate the exchange of health data within the health system. Coupled with data governance, ethics, and public health data standards, digital health and innovation enable the generation of new evidence and knowledge through research and innovation and inform health policy through public health analysis. Promoting Better Integration of Health Information Systems: Best Practices and Challenges (2015).
SMART Guidelines – Digital Adaptation Kits: Implementation Research and Technical Support: Digital adaptation kits (DAKs) are software-neutral, operational, and structured documentation based on WHO clinical, health system, and data use recommendations to systematically inform the design of digital systems. DAKs include the package of business process workflows, core data needs, decision support algorithms, linkages to indicators, and functional requirements for a health domain area, which can then be incorporated more easily in a digital system. In creating these operational tools derived from WHO guidelines, DAKs provide a unique way to reinforce recommendations and ensure adherence to clinical guidelines and standards within digital systems for improved service delivery.
WHO Guideline: Recommendations on Digital Interventions for Health System Strengthening: Recommendations based on a critical evaluation of the evidence on emerging digital health interventions that are contributing to health system improvements, based on an assessment of the benefits, harms, acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity considerations.
Classification of Digital Health Interventions v2.0 – A Shared Language to Describe the Uses of Digital Technology for Health: The classification of digital health interventions categorises the different ways in which digital and mobile technologies are being used to support health system needs. A shared and standardised vocabulary was recognised as necessary to identify gaps and duplication, evaluate effectiveness, and facilitate alignment across different digital health implementations.
Electromagnetic Field and Health Protection: As the digital reality moves from ‘cable’ to wireless traffic (Wi-Fi and mobile), a growing number of concerns are emerging on the impact of electromagnetic fields on human health. This technology has become part of the wider public debate and has given rise to conspiracy theories such as those that claim 5G spreads COVID-19. These concerns increase the importance of WHO’s research and policymaking within a broader evidence-based discussion on the impact of Wi-Fi and mobile devices on health. Model Legislation for Electromagnetic Field Protection (2006); Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (IEEE) Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz.

Online gaming: Since 2018, gaming disorder has been included in WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD). While the negative impacts of online gaming on health are being increasingly addressed by national health policies, it has been recognized by some authorities, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that some game-based devices could have a therapeutic effect. Given the fast growth of online gaming and its benefits and disadvantages, the implications on health are expected to become more relevant.

The health top-level domain name: Health-related generic top-level domain (gTLD) names, in all languages, including ‘.health’, ‘.doctor’, and ‘.surgery’, should be operated in a way that protects public health and includes the prevention of further development of illicit markets of medicines, medical devices, and unauthorized health products and services. Resolution WHA66.24: eHealth Standardization and Interoperability (2013).

Net neutrality

The issue of n et neutrality (the equal treatment of internet traffic) could affect bandwidth and the stability of digital connections, especially for high-risk activities such as online surgical interventions. Thus, health organizations may be granted exceptional provisions, as the EU has already done, where health and specialized services enjoy exceptions regarding the principle of net neutrality. Resolution WHA66.24: eHealth Standardization and Interoperability (2013).

WHO has dedicated cybersecurity focal points, who work with legal and licensing colleagues to provide frameworks for the organization to not only protect WHO data from various cyber-risks, but also provide technical advice to WHO and member states on the secure collection, storage, and dissemination of data. Health facilities and health data have always been the target of cybercriminals; however, the COVID-19 crisis has brought into sharp focus the cybersecurity aspects of digital health.

Ransomware attacks threaten the proper functioning of hospitals and other healthcare providers. The global Wannacry ransomware attack in May 2017 was the first major attack on hospitals and disrupted a significant part of the UK’s National Health System (NHS). Ransomware attacks on hospitals and health research facilities accelerated during the COVID-19 crisis.

Considering that data is often the main target of cyberattacks, it should come as no surprise that most cybersecurity concerns regarding healthcare are centred on the protection of data. Encryption is thus crucial for the safety of health data: It both protects data from prying eyes and helps assuage the fears patients and consumers may have about sharing or storing sensitive information through the internet.

Data governance

The 2021 Health Data Governance Summit brought together experts to review best practices in data governance, sharing, and use. The result was a call to action to tackle the legal and ethical challenges of sharing data, ensure data is shared during both emergency and non-emergency situations, and encourage data and research stewardship that promotes tangible impact. Key WHO resources include WHO’s Data Sharing Policies, the UN Joint Statement on Data Protection and Privacy in the COVID-19 Response, and GATHER (Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting).

WHO’s SCORE technical package (Survey, Count, Optimize, Review, and Enable) identifies data gaps and provides countries with tools to precisely address them. SCORE has been developed in partnership with the Bloomberg Data for Health Initiative. As part of SCORE, WHO completed the first ever global assessment of health information systems capacity in 133 countries, covering 87% of the world’s population.

The project Strengthening National Nutrition Information Systems1 is running in five countries in Africa and Asia – Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Laos, Uganda, and Zambia – for a period of four years (2020–2024). Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and national nutrition surveys are the major sources of nutrition data for many countries, but they are complex and expensive undertakings that cannot be implemented with the required frequency. It is, therefore, critical to strengthen or establish integrated nutrition information systems (NIS) of countries to enhance the availability and use of routine nutrition data to better support policy development, programme design and monitoring.

Data-driven delivery approach

A data-driven delivery approach sharpens WHO’s focus to address gaps, close inequalities, and accelerate progress towards national and regional priorities from WHO regions. The WHO Regional Office for the Americas is working to create open data platforms for evidence-based decisions and policymaking. The Core Indicators Portal provides a dataset of around 200 health indicators for 49 countries across the region from 1995 to 2021. The WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean is conducting harmonized health facility assessments and tracking 75 indicators through the Regional Health Observatory (RHO). The WHO Regional Office for Africa has prioritized investments in civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) and digital health. Its integrated African Health Observatory (iAHO) offers high-quality national and regional health data on a single platform and District Health Information Software (DHIS2) is now implemented in all but four African countries. The WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia is focused on promoting health equity through workshops that introduce member states to WHO’s Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT). High-quality data on health indicators is available on the Health Information Platform (HIP). The WHO Regional Office for Europe is prioritizing support for countries’ national health information systems (HIS) through more robust data governance frameworks. Member states also have access to the European Health Information Gateway, a one-stop shop for health information and data visualization. The WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific has released a progress report on each member state’s journey to achieving universal health coverage (UHC). Additionally, the Western Pacific Health Data Platform provides a single destination where countries can easily monitor and compare their progress towards national and global health objectives.

Access

WHO is working with Facebook and Praekelt.Org to provide WHO’s COVID-19 information to the world’s most vulnerable people through Discover and Free Basics in a mobile-friendly format. Though over 85% of the world’s population lives in areas with existing cellular coverage, many people can’t afford to purchase mobile data consistently and others have not yet adopted the internet. This initiative enables underserved communities to access life-saving COVID-19 health information through participating operators in more than 55 countries.

Strengthening Health Information Systems for Refugee- and Migrant-Sensitive Healthcare: Health information and research findings can provide a platform for understanding and responding to the health needs of refugees and migrants and for aligning the efforts of other sectors and sources of international assistance. However, the systematic national data and evidence comparable across countries and over time available for policy- and decision-making on health of refugees and migrants from around the world are inadequate. The WHO Health and Migratio

Sustainable development

Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3): To achieve a healthier population, improvements have been made in access to clean fuels, safe water, sanitation (WASH), and tobacco control. Greater focus is being placed on leading indicators for premature mortality and morbidity, such as tobacco, air pollution, road injuries, and obesity. Due to COVID-19, 94% of countries experienced disruption to essential health services. while 92 countries experienced little change or worsening trends in financial protection– exacerbated by the continuing pandemic. Emphasis on primary health care is essential to equitable recovery.

Climate change (SDG 13): The 10 recommendations in the COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health propose a set of priority actions from the global health community to governments and policymakers, calling on them to act with urgency on the current climate and health crises. The 2021 Global Conference on Health & Climate Change, with a special focus on Climate Justice and the Healthy and Green Recovery from COVID-19, convened on the margins of the COP26 UN climate change conference.

The SIDS Summit for Health in 2021 brought together small island developing states (SIDS) heads of states, ministers of health, and others to discuss the urgent health challenges and needs they face. It helped amplify SIDS voices, promote collaborative action, and strengthen health and development partnerships and financing. It included steps to advance ongoing health initiatives, and to help drive results at the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021, the 26th Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November 2021, and the Nutrition for Growth Summits in December 2021 and the years following.