Who’s now not funding WHO?

I’ve written about World Health Organisation (WHO) funding a couple of times before (see AC/VC: The shock of WHO funding and Who’s funding WHO), and it’s come up again this week because the United States, or rather its current Republican leadership, has decided to halt payment to the Organisation. It’s worth reviewing the US’ financial contribution to WHO because various figures have been bandied around in the media, most of which are inaccurate.

For example, here’s David Smith, writing in the UK’s The Guardian yesterday: “America contributed more than $400m to the WHO last year, making it by far the biggest donor. The organization’s budget for 2018-2019 was around $6bn”. I’m not sure where the $6bn figure comes from but I do know that WHO’s member states approved a budget of $4.4bn for 2018-19 back in May 2017.

The $400m is a little trickier to work out, but I suspect it refers to the $401m that the U.S paid to WHO in 2017 in voluntary contributions (VCs). To be fair to journalists reporting on this, WHO’s VC webpage only reports up to 2017. The U.S, of course, will know better, and I can understand why Trump would choose to cite the 2017 $400m figure. The U.S was generous in 2017, but was significantly less so in 2018. In 2018, the U.S paid $281m in voluntary contributions to WHO.

The U.S, as do all member states (MS), also pay Assessed Contributions (ACs). I won’t go into the degrees of flexibility of WHO funding here, but suffice to say that ACs are preferred by WHO because they give it maximum flexibility in terms of what it can do with the money (there are no strings attached by MS to ACs). The U.S pays by far the most ACs, and I think that Trump referred in part to these when he cited $58m in his press briefing on April 7th. In fact, that’s only about half the U.S’ annual AC contribution; it also pays CHF59m ($60m) every year.

The problem is that the U.S is currently in arrears with its ACs: as of 31st March 2020, it owes WHO $41m + CHF40m for 2019 and $58m + CHF59m for 2020. In total, it owes $99m + CHF99m.

As noted, the ACs are particularly important for WHO because they are completely flexible and WHO can do what it likes with them; the amount is also agreed in advance, so WHO can plan ahead knowing that that funding will come, eventually. It’s so important to WHO that there are consequences for any MS that fails to meet its AC funding commitment. It’s worth quoting here the relevant article of WHO’s constitution:

“If a Member fails to meet its financial obligations to the Organization or in other exceptional circumstances, the Health Assembly may, on such con- ditions as it thinks proper, suspend the voting privileges and services to which a Member is entitled. The Health Assembly shall have the authority to restore such voting privileges and services”.

Furthermore, the WHO issues the following, additional, guidance:

“If, at the time of the opening of the Health Assembly [May 2020], a Member is in arrears in an amount that equals or exceeds the amount of contributions due from it for the preceding two full years, the Health Assembly takes a decision on suspension of the Member’s voting privileges in accordance with resolution WHA41.7 (1988)”.

By my reckoning, if the U.S pays no ACs between now and the World Health Assembly in May, it will be in arrears – as per above – to the tune of $99m + CHF99m. Its contributions “for the preceding two full years” were: $59m + CHF60 for 2018 and 2019 = $118m + CHF120m. So I don’t think it falls foul of Article 7 of WHO’s constitution, but it’s close.

In crisis there is opportunity, as the adage goes, and the Trump administration clearly sees an opportunity here to make good on its FY21 budget (which some commentators claim would cut by half the US’ annual contribution to WHO, though I’ve not seen a source to substantiate this – it’s not in the published budget, for example), and also follow up on threats to WHO it made on the 8th April.

Trump’s announcement to suspend funding to WHO has been met with near-universal condemnation. Editor of the UK’s leading medical journal The Lancet described the act as a crime against humanity, which it is.

Trump’s public-facing concern is that: “With the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, we have deep concerns whether America’s generosity has been put to the best use possible”. In truth, his administration stopped paying its dues to WHO long before this pandemic reared its ugly head. The country he claims to represent is a giving, generous country, with giving, generous people. For how long can they stomach being led by such a shameful, mean spirited billionaire?


Published by andrew

7 comments on “Who’s now not funding WHO?”

  1. Dear Andrew, this is a very useful commentary, data on WHO funding is not always easy to find or understand. A question though, the USD and CHF numbers appear to be a conversion, that is USD converted into CHF — not two amounts that should be added together to get a sum total. Any further details available? Thank you, Suerie

    1. Hi Suerie,
      Thanks for the comment. I also wondered this when I was writing the post. This is what WHO writes on its AC page: “Where the total annual assessed contribution for a Member State is USD 200,000 or greater, that Member’s contributions are assessed half in United States dollar and half in Swiss francs, otherwise, contributions are assessed in United States dollars only”. The most recent ‘notice of assessment’ for the US [https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/revised-2019-invoice/usa_en.pdf?ua=1] suggests (at least to me) that there are two separate payments (one in $US and one in CHF). The dollar and franc are almost at parity, so it does look a bit like doubling up on paper. I’m not an insider, and can only interpret what I read from the publicly-available documents. So I might have misinterpreted the data. If I have, please let me know!

    1. Thanks Ben. Good to have a second pair of eyes review the documents. As Suerie says, WHO financing is not an easy topic to research. I’ll be writing more on this…

Leave a Reply