Now that the initial hubbub has faded, it’s time to take stock of what was really learned at the UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases. What lessons were learned, what will the summit’s impact ultimately be, and what’s the path for advocates going forward? Field Reports sat with two WLF staff members to hear about their experiences and ask their thoughts on the future. Our second interview is with Sandra Mullin, Senior Vice President of Policy and Communications. Read Part 1 here.

You spent some time in the ‘thick of things’ at the UN Summit on Non-Communicable Diseases; could you tell us some of what you personally observed?

Well, I spent an entire day at the summit and participated in a couple of side events that were quite interesting. The most interesting side event I attended consisted of the head of the CDC, the head of the WHO, and a couple of other esteemed people in public health—all packed in one room within the UN complex. It was impressive that people of that stature in public health showed up in person to talk about the importance of elevating NCDs onto the world’s public health agenda. I felt a real sense of accomplishment that these folks were discussing these issues, in this august environment.

Another memorable event that I had a chance to attend was a session with many of the ministers of health. I sat with the French delegation and listened to the various ministers endorse the importance of fighting NCDs—some emphatically.

The speech from Norway’s representative stood out—I thought she made a very impassioned statement against the tobacco industry, one of the most poignant I heard. I think she really understands the toll that tobacco is taking in both Norway and Scandinavia, and is very concerned about the new forms of tobacco that are being snuck in by the industry (like snus).

I was also very appreciative of what the Guyanese Minister of Health had to say; he was very clear- thinking about the impact of the industry in the Caribbean. I was also impressed with the Irish Minister of Health, who brought up the difficulty of going [home] and wrangling with Ministers of Finance—and other internal barriers ministers might face when pushing this agenda within their own countries. He was really looking for advice about the best way forward.

Overall, I was impressed that they didn’t just stand up there and just sort of wax poetic, but instead tried to address issues unique to their home countries.

The most surprising aspect of the whole event, to me was that in the end we accomplished what we wanted to accomplish before the event even began. All of the amazing work that went into putting this summit together really paid off. My colleagues at WLF did a tremendous job—thinking very clearly about objectives, goals and metrics for the future. That clear thinking overcame some of the fuzziness that I think we were all seeing at the beginning. Some of the ways in which governments seemed to line up behind the most pressing issues (tobacco in particular) was really impressive, and bore out the hard work that had gone into the preparation by our team and our NCD Alliance partners.

There was a lot of concern leading up to the summit about industry influence. Did you see any indication of that?

Well, I think one of the low points was listening to the Indonesian Minister of Health in the Chamber, who made not one mention about tobacco in her statement even though this is a leading health problem there. I guess that wasn’t surprising, because Indonesia’s been particularly awful on tobacco control, but as I sat there listening I thought, “Boy, the tobacco industry just has them completely trained not to even raise the issue.”

I didn’t see many overt signs of influence, but whenever any country didn’t explicitly condemn the industry, to me that was a sign of influence. Nor did I personally hear anybody talk explicitly about working cooperatively with industry, but many of the side events were permeated with industry people.

Tom Frieden, the CDC director, spoke very sensibly about setting clear goals and objectives and is clearly committed and US Department of Health and Human Services Department Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ participation was important, but the U.S. certainly didn’t come across as leading the global charge. Countries like Australia stole the show.

We’re seeing some actions being taken already—in India, for instance. What do you think the strategy for advocates is, going forward?

That’s a really good question, and I think there’s a lot of discussion about that now. There needs to be a strategy and plan to carry this forward—otherwise the progress made could evaporate. When an event like this is over, momentum naturally subsides. It’s incredibly important for us to have a concrete plan going forward.

I would say that we’re cautiously looking at a win; I certainly think it’s a symbolic victory. The [document adopted by the UN at the summit’s conclusion] will carry weight, but I think time could be an enemy here. If we let too much time go by before we find real, constructive ways to come up with deliverables—real objectives, real metrics—then over time, this could become a hollow victory.

Thanks to Sandra Mullin! To read Part 1 of this series, an interview with Rebecca Perl (WLF’s Associate Director of Communications and Special Projects), click here.

WLF Assesses the Impact of the UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases: Part 2 of 2