Tool 4: Developing a country strategy and action plan for a lead-free future for every child
The purpose of this tool is to provide guidance to national governments developing strategies to ensure a lead-free future for every child. The tool proposes the use of a ‘whole of government’ and multi-stakeholder approach – a deliberate effort to coordinate the work of multiple agencies and non-governmental stakeholders – and a set of steps to developing country-specific strategies to end childhood lead poisoning by 2040.
This tool first describes considerations before developing a national strategy, then details the need to bring together diverse stakeholders, including a multi-government approach, and finally outlines key considerations in developing a national lead-free strategy. This is Tool 4 of a total of 12 in the Toolkit to End Childhood Lead Poisoning that cover various topics related to lead poisoning. Together the tools form a complete primer on identifying, assessing and mitigating childhood lead exposure. The toolkit does not itself constitute adequate guidance for the development and implementation of such programmes. Rather, key considerations are outlined and a preliminary list of possible actions is presented.
Why use a whole-of-government approach?
Lead exposure cannot be adequately addressed by any one agency acting alone, because the mandates for action and solutions often lie under the purview of multiple agencies, spanning from ministries of industry and trade to environment, health and others. For example, lead can be domestically mined and recycled or imported from other countries.
Children then become exposed to lead through myriad disparate sources. These include traditional ceramic cookware, cosmetics, lead paint and industrial sources, among others. Once exposure occurs, its severity can be assessed through biological testing, with severe cases requiring medical intervention.
When exposure sources are identified, agencies with jurisdiction in those areas can take steps to develop or enforce regulation to address them. In this way, multiple agencies working across jurisdictions have some level of responsibility to address different aspects of lead poisoning. No single agency, however, has the mandate or authority to address lead across its entire life cycle. Thus, a whole-of government approach offers a practical mechanism to address the issue.
Closed loop diagram of lead value chain and examples of key regulators
In addition to a whole-of-government approach, the government must engage the private sector and civil society to end childhood lead poisoning because it is a complex, multifaceted issue with widespread societal consequences. The private sector, including industries working with lead, has the resources and innovation to transition to safer alternatives. Finally, civil society organizations bring grassroots expertise and advocacy, ensuring that the most vulnerable communities are identified and supported. Working in isolation, no single entity can effectively address the problem, but through a multi-stakeholder task force they can pool expertise, enforce accountability and secure sustainable funding. This unified approach ensures a healthier future for children, protects public health and reduces the long-term economic burden on society.
Developing a national lead-free strategy
With prerequisites complete – such as assembling a multisectoral taskforce, conducting a foundational lead assessment, gathering data on exposure sources and engaging key stakeholders – the conditions are in place to begin drafting a national lead-free strategy. The strategy should be clearly laid out in a concise document. There is no standard template for the development of such a document as it should be specific in nature, responding to the relevant country context.
An 11-point checklist for a national lead-free strategy
A whole-of-government approach
This webinar shared practical guidance on using a whole-of-government approach to tackle childhood lead poisoning—coordinating efforts across departments, agencies, and sectors for more effective, cost-efficient action. Country examples from Bangladesh and Georgia were featured.
.png)
