According to Andrew Jack in today’s FT special report on “Combating Malaria”, this year will mark the most hopeful World Malaria Day to date.

Why?

Well, for one Ray Chambers (the UN special envoy for malaria) is apparently confident that efforts are on track towards an ambitious mosquito net distribution programme which will complete during 2010.  He quotes “today we know we can achieve the goal of universal coverage of nets by the end of this year and near zero deaths from the disease by 2015.”

Evidence also supports the fact that far more effective tools for prevention and treatment have become available and distribution methods have been improved. In addition, the pipeline of technologies is growing with more effective medicines, improved diagnostic tests and possible vaccines emerging.

However, on top of this it is undoubtedly sophisticated and wide-spread advocacy and communications programmes which have really helped shape this positive environment. Comic Relief for example put a huge emphasis on malaria, dedicating the money raised by the 2009 celebrity Kilimanjaro climbers to the disease and investing in on the ground expertise (through Malaria Consortium and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria). In addition, this year we have the mighty football world cup in South Africa supporting the cause which will provide a truly global platform.

While there is certainly still far to go, it is exciting that World Malaria Day will this year be celebrated by the malaria community with such positivity and confidence. Visit the World Malaria Day website to find out more and show your support this weekend http://www.worldmalariaday.org/home_en.cfm

My last blog post looked at the challenges that communicators face in finding meaningful ways for supporters to engage in a campaign and take action against an issue.

I spotted an exciting campaign by the Body Shop and UNAIDS that appears to go one step beyond signing a pledge or tweeting a message. The campaign calls on individuals to attend a casting tomorrow at the Hoxton Street Studio to be involved in a shoot by award winning photographer Ian Rankin. Those with the most inspiring stories to tell about the fight against HIV, will feature.

This is a great way to get people really thinking about an issue in more depth, and how it relates to them.

There is no doubt that online channels are valuable ways to reach supporters, but in my opinion, offline tactics remain a key part of converting a supporter to a stronger advocate and activist.

Before Christmas I sat on a conference call with Gordon Brown to hear about his hopes for the Copenhagen summit. Impressive, you may think, but in fact this was a new ‘community engagement’ tactic hosted by Avaaz, allowing hundreds of people across the globe to dial into a conference call and pose questions to the PM. As the conference organisers said, this was an example of technology bringing citizens together like never before.

Although the format was innovative, the content of the call itself was quite unremarkable. One thing that caught my attention however was when someone posed the question “What do you need us, the citizens, to do about climate change”. Mr Brown’s reply was surprising. “Visit the Ed’s Pledge website,” he said “and register your support”. This website is dedicated to Ed Miliband Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and his ambition for greater ambition on climate change.

A few days later Ed Miliband sent me an email, offering me a whole raft of ways that I could “take action”. Take action, to me means getting a compost bin to reduce the amount of organic waste we throw into landfill sites, or getting on your bike to reduce the amount of harmful emissions we are pumping into the atmosphere. Ed’s definition was somewhat different; none of these actions were tangible ‘actions’ in the truest sense of the word. All did, however, include the prefix ‘click to’. Click to sign a petition, click to write to your newspaper, the list goes on.

This has made me think about the true effect technology is having on ‘taking action’. It seems to me that whilst online tools have become invaluable in bringing citizens together, we are in danger of changing the definition of ‘action’ among audiences. You would be forgiven for thinking from listening to Gordon Brown, that by signing a pledge, sending on a message of support to a friend or  re-tweeting a post then we’ve done enough, we can sit back in our armchairs because climate change will be halted.

Not only that but, before long, we are in danger of creating a kind of ‘take action’ fatigue among the general public. Before long people will undoubtedly start to question the true value of online pledge signing and wish to do something more meaningful in supporting a cause.

What lesson can we take for online communicators? Whilst increasingly novel community engagement tools can be useful in recruiting support and connecting people, we must not lose sight of the end goal. We need to dedicate as much creative thought to meaningful calls to action as the tools we use to communicate these.

Knowing how important having an online presence is and how cost effective it can be for any organisation, even the smallest not-for-profit, we will be running a free digital masterclass on engaging your communities through social media, and evaluating success.

The workshop will give you practical and tailored advice on engaging your audiences through social media platforms and take you through the interpretation of analytics to enable you to effectively evaluate your activities and build on success.

It will be led by Ged Carroll, e-consultancy trainer and Director of Digital Strategies at Ruder Finn, with added insights from the specialist Global Health and Advocacy team who are experienced in driving digital campaigns for not-for-profit organisations.

When and where? 30 November 2009 from 9-10.30am in central London

There are some places remaining, so if you’re from a not-for-profit and you want to learn more about online community engagement, email lyeatman@ruderfinn.co.uk to confirm a spot and we’ll send you location details.

The project is based on research showing that the lion’s share of media coverage around global health is negative, and further research showing that Americans want to hear the flipside of this - as described on the Living Proof website, “stories about progress, optimism and opportunity”.

Within the global health community, it has been commonplace to promote success, advocate for proven solutions, and ensure that positive images of the beneficiaries of their work are used.  Case studies like those in the Living Proof Project are very common to see on websites and in annual reports.  This makes me wonder about the apparent disconnect between what NGOs therefore put out, and the research that provided a rationale for this project.  Why was media coverage found to be generally negative when proactive communications from the global health community is generally positive?

One reason that comes to mind is a challenge of newsworthiness that faces many NGOs.  Good news is often less appealing to the media than bad news, and therefore for us PRs, a harder sell.  Another is the importance of setting up the problem or the unmet need in order to provide a context and an urgency for a solution.  This is a delicate balance that continues to challenge communicators.  How the Living Proof Project might succeed where others have failed, or only experienced moderate success, is through its ever newsworthy philanthropist backers.

1. Because networks and communities are central to campaigning

Evangelism of the few to mobilise the masses was at the centre of Obama’s presidential campaign. New media proved critical to the campaign’s success with supporters being contacted frequently with action orientated messages. Social media has the ability for frequent interaction with a community of supporters which is why it’s such as appropriate tool for campaigning. Facebook groups are a great way to recruit new supporters and encourage them into practical action.

2. Because talk is cheap

As opposed to traditional media, social media offers good return on investment as most popular social media sites are free to join. This will be music to the ears of resourced pushed third sector organisations who can reach large audiences with little financial investment.

3. Because it’s all about cutting through the red tape

Starting a blog or Twitter campaign is all about having the spontaneity to be able to write news and views as they happen and communicate with audiences on an up-to-the minute basis. This is often the biggest hurdle for corporations whose communications are heavily regulated and whose copy will have to go through several rounds of approval before it gets anywhere near the public domain, which often precludes them from social media altogether for fear of lack of control. If you’re an organisation where this kind of regulation is not an issue, then this is your chance to get ahead of the big guns. So get tweeting and blogging and position yourselves at the forefront of the news in your area.

4. Because social media is a route to the younger generation

The younger generation is notoriously hard to reach through traditional media. Social networking sites are common places for young people to interact. Demographics of audiences vary across applications but many attract high proportions of 18-24 year olds, which can be invaluable for reaching target audiences for education and fundraising campaigns. Take Facebook for example: Of the 8.4 million UK users, 3.8 million are in the 18 - 24 bracket.

5. Because all of your audiences are online

Social networks are not just a route to the younger demographic. Increasingly, even the less likely suspects are beginning to catch on, particularly policy makers. Regular tweeters include Sarah Brown, Number 10 and Barack Obama. This means the different forms of social media will become increasingly important advocacy platforms.

6. Because it’s easy

As well as price, ease of use is another reason why social media has caught on so quickly. Take setting up a blog for instance. Word press systems may seem daunting to begin with, but you’ll soon realise that it’s no different from writing an email, and the preview button is useful damage limitation for those worried about making mistakes!

7. Because human interest stories are inherently visual

Many NGOs deal with subjects of human interest. Being able to transparently represent those you seek to help in your communications is often the end goal. What better way to do this than through visual applications such as Flickr and YouTube, which are excellent platforms to use to humanize campaigns.  Citizen led reporting is billed by many to be the future, so let those that tell the story represent it online through a video story, podcast or photo story, and let the message shine through.

8. Because social media is a hot button for funding bodies and media alike

Social media is a hot topic right now, not a day goes by without seeing Twitter mentioned in the news. Seeing the golden words ’social media’ in a proposal may win points with funders who are keen to embrace this area, and innovative use of Twitter is likely to pick up lots of coverage as the Twitchhiker proved.

9. Because social media can be inclusive

Many NGOs are global and have offices in developing countries. Increasingly mobile phone and internet use is skyrocketing in the developing world and is only set to increase. Social media platforms can give southern civil society a greater voice in the conversation, which is incredibly important in advocacy campaigns that deal with developing world issues. Watch out for the levels of flash animation in applications, as this will exclude many on dial-up connections.

10. Because it’s green

The environmental argument is one of the most compelling to get online. Whilst many cite under resourcing as a reason not to invest in social media, switching communications online can save substantially on material and posting costs.

If these projections become a reality it will place an overwhelming strain on the NHS, not to mention the already compromised British economy. This makes me wonder about the government’s policy of “treating” rather than “containing” the virus, considering the rate at which it now appears to be spreading.

Dr Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organisation (WHO) at a recent press conference announced the influenza pandemic alert had been raised from phase five to six, the highest level of alert. The alert was raised on the basis of available evidence and expert assessments that scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic had been met. Dr Chan assured us “the virus is pretty stable” but that we needed to “track and monitor” it for signs of change.

The WHO has defined the phases of a pandemic to provide a global framework to assist countries in preparing for a pandemic as well as response planning so why is it the government has not yet put contingency planning into practice to try and contain the virus, in particular for example in schools where there have been confirmed cases and whereby those attending are most susceptible.

The highest level of alert to me appears quite worrying considering the most severe influenza pandemic in the 20th century impacted with an estimated 40 to 50 million deaths worldwide. Last Wednesday alone 601 people in the UK were diagnosed with swine flu. The total number of cases in the UK stands at over seven and a half thousand and the global number of confirmed swine flu deaths has reached four hundred and twenty-nine.

According to the WHO to-date the majority of scientifically proven cases of the H1N1 virus have primarily presented in developed regions of the world. In time, it will spread to developing countries whose healthcare systems will likely be unable to cope with such high numbers of infections.

A number of areas I think will be worth tracking over the coming months include:

• To-date the virus has been prevalent in children and those that have weak immune systems- how is this pattern to develop in the coming months?
• Are developed countries to remain those ‘most at risk’ when compared with developing countries?
• Will the number of people contracting the virus increase in the winter months? If so by how many?
• What will tracking and monitoring this particular virus throughout the southern hemisphere’s winter teach us in the northern hemisphere should another outbreak occur this autumn

What do you think?

However, as well as remembering these children it also now serves as a day to highlight the challenges to children in Africa today. A new briefing paper launched today by Save the Children notes that within the next 24 hours, more than 1,500 babies born today in sub-Saharan African will die, mostly from preventable or treatable causes.  In fact, death rates among newborns remain so high in Africa that parents in many communities postpone naming their baby for a month or more until they are certain the child will survive.

Nine years ago world leaders signed up to the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to reduce poverty. However, so far very few countries are actually on track to meet the goals and if this trend continues, the goals will not be met until around 2045. MDG 6 for example, which includes malaria - the biggest killer of African children today - needs an increase of funding of up to four times the present level to fill the large resource gap that currently exists. A new report which was launched today by the European Alliance Against Malaria highlights this large funding gap, and calls for an increase in donor funding in real terms given the detrimental effect of the financial crisis on GNIs.

Ultimately, the Day of the African Child and all of the advocacy initiatives that are being undertaken to celebrate it, act as timely reminders of the urgent need to protect African children and address the health and welfare inequalities that are so evident, with sustained donor commitments from around the world.

This struck me as odd, given that you would think a country which ratifies a treaty would be more likely to comply with its treaty obligations (in this case, human rights) and integrate these into its laws and policies.  Obviously there is a role for Governments in promoting the right to health through legislation, allocation of resources and devising health programmes.  There is also a role for lawyers in using treaty obligations to argue for the human right to health (such as the right to essential medicine) and a role for civil society “to change health policy and programes…through advocacy and involvement of international partners”*.

However, experts agree that discourse and debate on what constitutes the human right to health is something which must be had.  A 2002 meeting on Advancing The Dialogue on Health and Human Rights also states that this should involve an interdisciplinary group of economists, development practitioners, public health professionals and epidemiologists.

It is clear that for the human right to health to be understood on a level playing field with other human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, we must all be involved, and not just in terms of thinking about how it should be clarified.  Those of us working in health should look around us, see what others like the WHO are doing, what guidance is already out there, engage others in the debate, raise awareness, think about how the right impacts on health programmes or health services and integrate this thinking and these tools into our work.

We need to consider the human right to health when designing health programmes and communication strategies so that slowly but surely people around the world, whether it is a nurse working in a community health centre in Uganda, or a patient in a hospital in the United Kingdom start claiming the right to the health - the right to the highest attainable standard of health.

What do you think?

* http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673609602312