DISEASE is coming back. This week alone, emergencies in five countries 鈥� Iraq, Nigeria, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen 鈥� reached the highest grade on the World 午夜福利1000集合 Organization鈥檚 scale. That means they have the potential for 鈥渟ubstantial public health consequences鈥� 鈥� international ones.
But no international agency can yet step in and fix these crises, never mind prevent them. So far even the WHO hasn鈥檛 been able to. It was not designed for handling emergencies, but to provide nations with technical health advice. It is a global agency, but until recently most disease outbreaks were not global threats.
Now that they are, the agency is rushing to reinvent itself as the global disease response service the world increasingly needs. But that requires 鈥減redictable, multi-year financing鈥�, says Peter Salama, director of the 午夜福利1000集合 Emergencies Programme. Without that certainty, it is hard to plan, and to recruit staff with emergency management experience.
Advertisement
The question now is: will the member states foot the bill?
The wake-up call that the world was missing a vital global caretaker came in 2014 with the Ebola epidemic in Africa. After its disastrously slow response almost let the epidemic spin out of control, the WHO began trying to ramp up its ability to respond to such emergencies. Last year it set up its emergencies programme to coordinate responses to outbreaks. This year the world finds out if it works.
Ensuring it does is left to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the former health and foreign minister of Ethiopia, who was elected last week as the WHO鈥檚 new director general. In his first press conference after the election, Tedros reaffirmed this programme as a priority. During his campaign, he said, he found member states agreed.
鈥淭his week, emergencies in five countries could bring substantial international consequences鈥�
However, a report presented in Geneva last week found that members haven鈥檛 backed their concerns with money. The programme鈥檚 core budget is so far only 70 per cent funded. An additional 鈥渁ppeals鈥� budget for humanitarian emergencies has $67 million of its $523 million target, and a contingency fund for fast response to crises like Ebola has a third of its planned $100 million.
Even this insufficient funding may soon be cut. A mere fifth of the WHO budget comes from member countries鈥� regular dues, the rest from rich countries鈥� voluntary contributions.
So it was bad news last week when the US 鈥� the source of , more than any other country 鈥� proposed a national budget that cuts funding for global health and for UN agencies. The Trump administration plans to eliminate the voluntary contributions so vital to the WHO. It will allocate what is left to agencies that 鈥渕ost directly support US national security interests and American prosperity鈥�.
That should have meant the WHO is safe, given that prosperity depends on averting potential pandemics. Trump鈥檚 team doesn鈥檛 see it that way, slashing other global programmes that fight diseases like HIV.
Can Tedros squeeze blood from these stones? He predicts the US proposal is likely to change. And he said in Geneva that the WHO should get funds from a 鈥渂roader base鈥� of contributors, and boost its fundraising staff and skills.
Wish him luck. He鈥檒l need it, to save the world鈥檚 best hope of fighting an increasingly global threat.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淲HO needs a global emergency service?鈥�
