COVID-19 has come knocking on the Wests door — but a lackluster fund-raising response, as well as nationalistic funding strategies, could stymie the World Health Organizations efforts to tackle the outbreak.
Its been 21 days since the WHO launched its global funding appeal for urgent preparedness and response work, asking for $675 million (€620 million), with $61.5 million needed to cover February to April. As of February 26, just $1.4 million had been received.
Those who have come to the table are an unlikely trio: Ireland, Slovakia and the global public health organization Vital Strategies.
Pledges currently rack up to around $29 million, according to the WHOs tracker, but this is still well short of the target. Countries that have pledged include France, Canada, Norway and the United Kingdom.
On Monday, as fears of the virus spread ratcheted up, and with deaths spiking in Italy, the European Commission announced €232 million in new funding, with about €114 million promised to go to the WHO. This, along with some other promised funding, appears not be included in the WHOs tracker.
The Commission had planned the cash injection before evidence of the impact in Italy emerged, but it followed WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus plea to the international community to take the funding call “very, very seriously.”
“At the beginning, many countries saw this as a problem for China and China only,” said Wim Groot, professor of health economics at Maastricht University. “They have become aware that its a global health problem.”
What exactly each country has contributed is unclear: The WHO says it cant provide financial breakdowns for pledges before the money actually reaches its coffers.
Thats also the question worrying Devi Sridhar, professor and chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh. Sridhar said it was unclear how much exactly had been pledged and how long it would take to receive the funding.
“The earlier they can get the money, the better for their response,” she added.
Speaking on Monday, the executive director of the WHOs Health Emergencies Program, Michael Ryan, admitted that most of the funding was still in pledge stage. But the global body does have mechanisms in place “to spend against those pledges immediately … in coming days,” he said.
Not yet a penny from the U.S.
On the other hand, theres no sign that the U.S. plans to contribute to the WHOs appeal. The Trump administration is asking for $2.5 billion from Congress, none of which appears to be going to the WHO.
That said, the U.S. could contribute to the WHOs appeal through other mechanisms — and it already contributes significantly to the WHOs budget (although if Trump had his way this would be slashed).
This scorning of the WHOs appeal is “disappointing,” said David McCoy, professor of Global Public Health at Queen Mary University of London. “It may reflect the U.S. increasing withdrawal from supporting multilateral agencies and multilateral initiatives,” he added.
And its not just the U.S.
“The international health infrastructure is incredibly fragmented,” a representative from a global health organization told POLITICO, adding that its in this environment that individual countries need to step up to the plate.
But this understanding isnt always easy, the representative added, saying: “The clarity of government decision-making that allows [countries] to focus and mobilize resources for international priorities might be a little more challenging in todays political climate.”
McCoy also points to “a degree of self-interest” in funding efforts, “with countries looking to mobilize funding to protect their own populations.”
In the wake of the Ebola outbreak in 2014, the U.S. took the lead in making significant contributions to the WHOs funding. Germany and the U.K. also played a role, both contributing in excess of $13 million.
But with the coronavirus, which unlike Ebola has hit the U.S., Germany and the U.K., funding for the WHOs global appeal has been markedly less enthusiastic.
The U.K. has promised only £5 million to this appeal and Germany hasnt yet contributed, although it has made a contribution to the WHOs Contingency Fund for Emergencies for this outbreak. Its unclear exactly how much this donation was.
Too many cooks?
The U.S. decision to go it alone highlights another perennial problem with global financing: The proliferation of different funding pots, managed by different actors and sometimes for overlapping causes.
“Theres enough money in the system,” said Sridhar. The problem is where the money is actually going, she points out.
“If all governments are basically going along and doing their own thing, it leads to duplication and lack of coordination,” she added.
Another funding pot under the spotlight is the World Banks pandemic bonds, which were established in the wake of the Ebola outbreak. The bonds provide financial support to the World Banks emergency pandemic financing mechanism, which channels cash to countries most at risk of a pandemic.
One of these bond issues has seen a dramatic decline in value as investors fear losses, reports Reuters. A worst-case scenario wRead More – Source
COVID-19 has come knocking on the Wests door — but a lackluster fund-raising response, as well as nationalistic funding strategies, could stymie the World Health Organizations efforts to tackle the outbreak.
Its been 21 days since the WHO launched its global funding appeal for urgent preparedness and response work, asking for $675 million (€620 million), with $61.5 million needed to cover February to April. As of February 26, just $1.4 million had been received.
Those who have come to the table are an unlikely trio: Ireland, Slovakia and the global public health organization Vital Strategies.
Pledges currently rack up to around $29 million, according to the WHOs tracker, but this is still well short of the target. Countries that have pledged include France, Canada, Norway and the United Kingdom.
On Monday, as fears of the virus spread ratcheted up, and with deaths spiking in Italy, the European Commission announced €232 million in new funding, with about €114 million promised to go to the WHO. This, along with some other promised funding, appears not be included in the WHOs tracker.
The Commission had planned the cash injection before evidence of the impact in Italy emerged, but it followed WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus plea to the international community to take the funding call “very, very seriously.”
“At the beginning, many countries saw this as a problem for China and China only,” said Wim Groot, professor of health economics at Maastricht University. “They have become aware that its a global health problem.”
What exactly each country has contributed is unclear: The WHO says it cant provide financial breakdowns for pledges before the money actually reaches its coffers.
Thats also the question worrying Devi Sridhar, professor and chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh. Sridhar said it was unclear how much exactly had been pledged and how long it would take to receive the funding.
“The earlier they can get the money, the better for their response,” she added.
Speaking on Monday, the executive director of the WHOs Health Emergencies Program, Michael Ryan, admitted that most of the funding was still in pledge stage. But the global body does have mechanisms in place “to spend against those pledges immediately … in coming days,” he said.
Not yet a penny from the U.S.
On the other hand, theres no sign that the U.S. plans to contribute to the WHOs appeal. The Trump administration is asking for $2.5 billion from Congress, none of which appears to be going to the WHO.
That said, the U.S. could contribute to the WHOs appeal through other mechanisms — and it already contributes significantly to the WHOs budget (although if Trump had his way this would be slashed).
This scorning of the WHOs appeal is “disappointing,” said David McCoy, professor of Global Public Health at Queen Mary University of London. “It may reflect the U.S. increasing withdrawal from supporting multilateral agencies and multilateral initiatives,” he added.
And its not just the U.S.
“The international health infrastructure is incredibly fragmented,” a representative from a global health organization told POLITICO, adding that its in this environment that individual countries need to step up to the plate.
But this understanding isnt always easy, the representative added, saying: “The clarity of government decision-making that allows [countries] to focus and mobilize resources for international priorities might be a little more challenging in todays political climate.”
McCoy also points to “a degree of self-interest” in funding efforts, “with countries looking to mobilize funding to protect their own populations.”
In the wake of the Ebola outbreak in 2014, the U.S. took the lead in making significant contributions to the WHOs funding. Germany and the U.K. also played a role, both contributing in excess of $13 million.
But with the coronavirus, which unlike Ebola has hit the U.S., Germany and the U.K., funding for the WHOs global appeal has been markedly less enthusiastic.
The U.K. has promised only £5 million to this appeal and Germany hasnt yet contributed, although it has made a contribution to the WHOs Contingency Fund for Emergencies for this outbreak. Its unclear exactly how much this donation was.
Too many cooks?
The U.S. decision to go it alone highlights another perennial problem with global financing: The proliferation of different funding pots, managed by different actors and sometimes for overlapping causes.
“Theres enough money in the system,” said Sridhar. The problem is where the money is actually going, she points out.
“If all governments are basically going along and doing their own thing, it leads to duplication and lack of coordination,” she added.
Another funding pot under the spotlight is the World Banks pandemic bonds, which were established in the wake of the Ebola outbreak. The bonds provide financial support to the World Banks emergency pandemic financing mechanism, which channels cash to countries most at risk of a pandemic.
One of these bond issues has seen a dramatic decline in value as investors fear losses, reports Reuters. A worst-case scenario wRead More – Source
