April 7, 2025
The People’s Health Movement (PHM) and the Food Sovereignty Movement will stand side by side in the Nyéléni Global Forum, to strengthen their connections and show the world that there can be no global health without food sovereignty, just as the food system must be based on the concept of care in order to unleash its transformative potential. In this interview with Marcos Filardi, Roman Vega, David Legge and Lauren Paremoer from PHM, we explore interconnections between two of the global movements coming together in this Nyéléni Process.
What are the main issues that the People Health Movement will bring to attention on People’s Health Day this year?
The PHM draws the world’s attention to the three interrelated crises that imperialism, four decades of neoliberal capitalism, and the current global geopolitical climate are giving rise to: rampant inequalities (in income, wealth, and resources); environmental breakdown (climate crisis, biodiversity loss, species extinction, and environmental degradation); wars, occupation, conflict, and forced displacement (with increasing numbers of people in the Global South seeking refuge from these crises); and rising conservatism and a backlash against women’s hard-won rights. This is further characterized by the commercialization and privatization of health systems, which has contributed to impeding the achievement of the Health for All goal championed by the PHM. This polycrisis has been worsening the health of humanity and the planet and making the hope for the continued existence of all beings unsustainable, especially those in the Global South and those who remain and are increasingly falling into conditions of social, economic, food and environmental vulnerability. That is why, at the last meeting of our Steering Council, we called on all peoples of the world, and particularly on social movements, governments, and left-wing and progressive political forces, to redouble our efforts in the fight for a more equitable, ecologically sustainable, decolonized, and peaceful world, where healthy lives for all are a reality. A world that respects diversity and celebrates all life in harmony with nature; a world that allows and recognizes the abilities to enrich each other; a world in which people’s voices and community-centered approaches guide the decisions that shape our lives. This can be achieved through collective action, championing social and climate justice, and challenging the oppressive systems that perpetuate inequality. By uniting as a global community, we can work to create a better future for all beings on this planet. By prioritizing the “Buen Vivir” (living well) of marginalized and vulnerable communities and addressing the root causes of systemic injustices, we can pave the way for a more equitable and inclusive world where every individual could thrive and contribute to a brighter, more transformative future for generations to come.
What do you think of the ‘one health’ approach that after being proposed by the World Health Organisation is now being cited by all major UN agencies and beyond?
The One Health narrative is valid in that it recognises the interdependence of human and animal health and environmental sustainability. This recognition of the obvious it is not such a huge breakthrough but it there is no doubt that pre-existing paradigms and practices in orthodox public health had ignored such links. Thanks to the rise of One Health the established institutions of public health are now moving (slowly) to systematically address these links in policy and practice. For those who are committed to addressing the challenges associated with antimicrobial resistance the rise of One Health has been a boon since it opens the way for comprehensive policies and programs to address AMR.
However, notwithstanding the progress which has been made in the official One Health narrative there are important issues associated with the interrelationships of human and animal health and environmental sustainability which have not been picked up by the One Health advocates, which might have been consciously avoided in order to achieve the necessary reforms in orthodox public health. Among the issues which are being avoided are the growth fetish of capitalism, the gross inequalities in access to food and in environmental footprints, and the inequalities and brutalities of power which defend growthism and environmental, economic and political inequality. For instance, the conventional view on One Health misses the role of transnational circuits of capital in disturbing ecological and agroecological landscapes.
It is common for political radicals to join debates with orthodoxy about perspectives and policies, but they need to approach such debates with a clear analysis of the wider circumstances which frame those debates, and they need to structure their contribution to such debates within a wider program which is directed to fundamental structural reform. This might mean joining discussions about addressing AMR but doing so in ways which also contribute to challenging capitalist growthism, challenging food and environmental inequalities, and challenging the structures which reproduce such inequalities.
From a different perspective it is worth recalling that part of the impetus behind official US support for One Health was the scope it provided for China-bashing. This context casts further light on (what I suggest is) the deliberate avoidance, in much of the One Health discussion of growthism and inequality.
It seems that many countries are moving from the precautionary and prevention approaches to a new idea of “preparedness”. Is this likely to lead to a paradigm shift that will affect global health?
The Covid-19 pandemic deepened and reinforced an already-existing emphasis on health security. For example, the G8 to the HIV/AIDs pandemic in the early 2000s was already concerned about security threats emerging from that pandemic. We see the security discourse also now being adopted in the Global South, e.g. Africa CDC’s proposal of establishing a new public health order has elements of seeing health as a threat to security.
We think pandemic preparedness will end up being defined by the balance of forces at play. One site where this can be observed is in the Pandemic Treaty negotiations. If the Global North’s proposals win the day, “preparedness” might end up focusing on developing surveillance infrastructures at the expense of, for example, geographically diversified production of pandemic products. If Global South countries are successful in securing their demands, the reverse might occur – e.g. preparedness would have less emphasis on expanding surveillance of all pathogens, and more emphasis on diversified manufacturing but also investment in health system strengthening and debt relief. In the end the paradigm shift will reflect the power dynamics in various forums rather than the definition itself activating the shift.
Why do you think it is important for the PHM to connect with the food sovereignty movement in the Nyeleni Process? What can come out of this alliance?
Food Sovereignty is a central component of the “Health for all” Campaign championed by the PHM. In the People’s Health Assembly 4 (PHA4), held in Bangladesh, we created a permanent Global Circle on Nutrition and Food Sovereignty with activists from all over the world and we have participated actively in the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSIPM) of the United Nations Committee for Food Security (CFS).
We welcomed the invitation made by the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) to be part of the Third Nyéléni Process and in our Call to Action of PHA5, held in 2024 in Mar del Plata, Argentina, we committed the whole movement to an active participation in the process.
We are convinced that a radical systemic change is necessary and urgent, and this will only be possible if we strengthen the networks and build popular power with other global movements.
The Third Nyéléni Process is a unique platform for global movements to come together, engage their different constituencies, experiences and struggles in dialogue, build political trust among movements and agree on a joint political agenda for radical systemic change.
In the crisis of civilization we are facing, the 3rd Nyéléni Global Forum offers us the huge challenge of building collectively a path to “Buen Vivir” for all, and from the PHM we are thankful and enthusiastic to be part of it.