United States to stop Funding the World Health Organization (WHO). How is WHO funded?

Background Context

The United States President Donald Trump took a big leap and decided to halt the major portion of its funding that fuelled the health-related activates initiated by the World Health Organizations (WHO) citing that, WHO has “missed the call” on havoc spread by the coronavirus pandemic. This is considered to be the major strike on WHO since its establishment, and the United States is the lead financial source.


Donal Trump cities, the WHO board had “got it wrong” on COVID-19 episode and they being very “China Centric” in their approach, apparently mentioning, the WHO tuned very well with the Republic of China, and had a brief idea about the severity of the consequences of the coronavirus, if ever to turn into pandemic, months earlier to the actual announcement of the outbreak from the Republic of China. WHO failed to act, thus risked potential lives and economies into turmoil.  As a result of this, US President Donald Trump decided to consider the option of to halt or cut-off the funding being disbursed to the World Health Organization (WHO) every year (approximately $58-$60 million, as of March 2020). This is a big blow to the WHO, as the United States is its major funding source.

Key Facts about the World Health Organization (WHO):  

  • Agency Name: World Health Organization (WHO)  
  • Date of establishment: 07 April 1948.  
  • Headquarter: Geneva, Switzerland  
  • Parent Organization: United Nation Economic and Social Council   

The preliminary aim of the organization is to access and act as in coordinating authoritative body to direct the shape the efforts towards solving health issues across the globe. Since its inception, the United States has been its major source of finances, technical expertise and support. Moreover, the US has an active participant in shaping its governance structure. That being said, Unites States is the largest funding source or contributor to the World Health Organization (WHO).

HOW is WHO financed of funded?  

There are four major sources or stream of contributions that rich the bank account of the World Health Organization (WHO)


Accessed Contributions: According to the information mentioned on the WHO’s website, the term assessed contribution is the fee or dues nations pay in order to be the member of the esteemed organization. This set amount, expected to be paid the member nation’s government, annually towards WHO is calculated by the per capita income (nation’s wealth) and member nation’s population.

Voluntary Contributions: Any additional contribution (in addition to their assessed contribution) by member states or from other partners is termed, Voluntary contributions, this can range from flexible to highly earmarked. However, the voluntary contributions are coined for the contributions from private institutions or organizations and individuals). The core voluntary contributions enable the less well-funded activities to benefit from a consistent flow of resources and ease fulfilment bottleneck that may or may not arise when immediate funding is not place.

Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Contributions: This was initiated in the year 2011 to enhance, sustain and reinforce the sharing of the influenza viruses with human pandemic possibilities and most importantly to improve the accessibility of the developing countries to available vaccines and other pandemic related medical supplies and awareness resources. Very recently the accessed contribution to WHO had a steady decline and this narrates to one-fourth of its funding.

The accessed contributions are very important in terms of continuations of the various campaigns undertaken by WHO in various continents and they reduce the dependency on other sources of finances, such as narrow donor base. Although voluntary contributions (institutional and individuals) make up most of the remaining funding.

The Current Funding's Scale 

United States holds the honour of WHO’s biggest, regular and prominent contributor, accounts for 14.67 per cent of the overall funding, this collectively translates to USD $553.1 million.

The second position is secured by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation making it 9.76 per cent, roughly translating to USD $370 million. 

On third position we have GAVI Vaccine Alliance at 8.39 per cent, followed by the United Kingdom (UK) 7.79 per cent at fourth position and Germany at 5.68 per cent, securing the fifth position respectively.

The four next biggest contributors or donors are international establishments …
  • United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – 5.10 per cent
  • World Bank – 3.5 Percent
  • Rotary International – 3.3 per cent
  • European Commission – 3.3 per cent
  • India’s contribution towards WHO - 0.5 per cent and Ironically China - 0.21 per cent.

The Distributions and Utilization of the WHO Funds   

The collected contributions or accumulated funds from varied sources are utilised, allocated to the different regions of the world.
  • African Region - USD $1.2 billion
  • Eastern Mediterranean Region - USD $1.02 billion
  • WHO Headquarters - USD $964 million
  • South-East Asia Region - USD $198.7 million (This includes India)
  • Europe – USD $201 million
  • Western Pacific - USD $153 million
  • America – USD $39.5 million
The biggest campaigns and programmes undertaken through this funding are
  • Polio eradication - 27 per cent fund allocation
  • Essential health and nutrition services - 12.5 per cent fund allocation
  • Preventable disease vaccine - 8.9 per cent

Current Issue for the United States with WHO

The United States stood strong with the World Health Organization (WHO) since its establishment and continued to be the prominent donor and financial contributor, and witnessed many times when WHO underwent major changes and reforms.

Taking it further, there are several key questions, relating to the United States active engagement with the World Health Organization (WHO) including:

The stretch to which Unites States will continue its funding assistance and another related backup of WHO and what part it will play in WHO’s governance structure and direct required reforms.

Under the leadership of new Director-General, the WHO made significant improvement and progress in overall effectiveness in organizational deliverables and addressing its challenges.

The enhanced standards of technical, administrative and governance partnership between the United States and World Health Organization (WHO), more importantly in the unforeseen situations of the pandemic, new public health emergency and disease outbreak in the near future.

WHO encounters a number of institutional defiances (Obstacles)?  

The WHO faces series of varied challenges, some of them are broad mandate with calculated and inflexible financing and administrative complexities and proven track record of ill responses and performances in immediate health emergencies, thus there has been massive changes and reforms been considered to WHO responses more effective in relation the emergencies.

Although with the growing number of adjacent responsibilities, the funding and budget options witnessed no change in recent years and remained flat and unchanged.

The budget and funding options remained least-flexible with greater dependency on voluntary contributions often directed for specific and pre-defined activities, sometimes even for the specific geographic region.

The inconvenient, incommodious, decentralised and administrative system/structure; and
A confound mandate of being both, a technical establishment with health expertise and a political institution or platform for debate and negotiate on inharmonious health issues, not suitable for either.

Changes and Reforming for the World Health Organization:  

World Health Organization (WHO) is an intergovernmental institution and thus, not immune to political power-play as being noted and observed by the reports of the director-general, having safeguarding from naming the virus after the country where it was originated and first identified I.e. China and obstruct the formal declaration of a pandemic.

Moreover, only 1/4th of the financial contribution is collected form UN member states or countries, and the actual funding is by voluntary contributions from various countries and organizations.   

WHO plays a crucial role in defining new protocols, setting standards and benchmarks in relation to public health. However, unattended and least-cared, this is a matter of most importance for the global economies, especially those regions with the spirited and vigorous pharmaceutical industry.

The United States is the leading funding and directive contributor, but the eastern nations like China have also acknowledged WHO’s importance in setting standards and protocols.

World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making committee for the World Health Organization (WHO) held annually is attended by all member states.   

With importunity for the ideal and recommended, real-time feedback and response from WHO, the Executive Board (EB) of WHO should be treated a standing body and the elected countries to have Geneva-based permanent appointed representatives on it. The EB should gather when needed and mandate or direct the recommended action by WHO.

Source: The Hindu

Post a Comment

Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Previous Post Next Post