WHO GETS 81% OF FUNDING FROM PRIVATE CORPORATIONS: CFR WEBSITE REVEALS MEMBER STATES DID NOT WANT TO DECLARE A PANDEMIC EMERGENCY

Tuesday, 22 December 2009 10:16

News - Highlighted News

< Prev		Next >

The WHO’s annual budget for 2010 will be almost $5 billion with 81 % of the funding -- or $4 billion --coming from voluntary contributions from pharmaceutical companies, foundations and other donors, according to a WHO draft budget, available on the website of the Rockefeller affiliated think-tank, the Council of Foreign Relations.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/20003/world_health_organization.html

A table on page 13 of the document, which is called "Draft proposed programme budget for 2010-2011",reveals that the proportion of funding that WHO gets from voluntary contributions has been rising steadily from 71% in 2006-2007 to 77.3% in 2008-2009 to 81% in 2010-2011.

Total funding in 2006-2007 was just over US$ 3 billion.

http://www.paho.org/english/gov/cd/cd48-whobpb-e.pdf

WHO appears reluctant to release a copy of its actual annual budget. A WHO employee working in the publications department in Geneva said that it was a „very internal document“ and not every one was entitled to see it.

I have emailed the WHO publications department and requested a copy.

The gigantic and growing amounts of funding that WHO receives from pharmaceutical corporations and private foundations is bound to raise questions about the influence that these entities exercised on WHO’s declaration of a pandemic level 6 emergency this June.

The CFR website also reveals that „some“ delegates of the the World Health Assembly (WHA), which acts as WHO's governing body, did not want to declare a pandemic emergency level 6 over the mild swine flu.

“It took nearly two months of lobbying and a three-day emergency session to get enough members on board for the pandemic declaration,” says the CFR website.

It is not clear who was doing the lobbying to persuade WHA members to agree to a pandemic level 6 declaration.

It is not clear whether pharmaceutical company representatives participated in this three-day emergency session.

WHO has refused to give the names of 18 members of a key secret committee that played a key role in the pandemic emergency declaration. Therefore, it is not possible to assess how many have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

It is, however, known that at least 7 members of a key vaccine advisory board, SAGE, have financial links to pharmaceutical companies, raising fears of conflicts of interest.

Also, dozens of pharmaceutical executives were present allegedly as „observers“ at a meeting of Sage in July.

WHO refused to release the minutes of this meeting, reinforcing the impression that WHO is engaged inc concealing the influential role of pharmaceutical companies in its decision-making process.

Given the substantial contributions for the private sector, it is legitimate to ask whether the pharmaceutical companies and allied foundations leveraged their financial clout to push through a pandemic level 6 declaration over the mild swine flu so ensuring themselves windfall profits from pre negotiated contracts with governments for vaccines.

The CFR website also states the International Health Regulations are “a legally binding policy for infectious diseases for all WHO member countries.”

“In 1995, the WHO began revising the International Health Regulations (PDF), a legally binding policy for infectious diseases for all WHO member countries.”

This will raise fears of whether private corporations controlling WHO have also gained control of key functions of national governments in the event of a pandemic declaration.

In addition, the CFR says that the „World Bank and International Monetary Fund have a growing influence on population health that outweighs WHO's.“

What kind of an influence do these banks have since they are known for their predatory approach, and for slashing health programmes as a condition of funding?

„The 2005 Global Health Watch report found that "transnational corporations and other global institutions--particularly the World Bank and International Monetary Fund--have a growing influence on population health that outweighs WHO's" and "some of these institutions, the Bank in particular, now operate in direct competition with WHO."

Furthermore, the significant influence of the eugenicist Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on global health is referred to.

Extracts from the CFR website:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/20003/world_health_organization.html

The WHO's estimated budget (PDF) is $4.9 billion for 2010, more than $1 billion of which is allocated for "partnerships and collaborative arrangements," such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI). Another $2.2 billion is targeted at combating HIV/AIDS ($731 million) and infectious diseases ($1.5 billion). Health experts say funding for the organization is inadequate given the WHO's mandate and that a significant portion of the budget is targeted by donors toward particular programs, similar to the earmarking done by the U.S. Congress.

WHA members finance the WHO with dues based on their individual gross domestic products (GDPs). Garrett says this means, in essence, that countries with the greatest health needs have to listen to the countries with the most money. The 2005 Global Health Watch report says the United States, in particular, uses its funding leverage to continually pressure WHO (PDF) "to steer clear of 'macroeconomics' and 'trade issues' that it says are outside its scope, and to avoid such terminology as 'the right to health.'"

Since the organization was created, the number of global health bodies has ballooned, including those within the UN framework like UNAIDS and UNICEF, numerous HIV/AIDS programs, large private entities such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and nongovernmental organizations such as Doctors without Borders. Experts say the rise of these other organizations, especially those with vastly more resources, is testing the WHO's leadership role. "It's chaos," CFR's Garrett says, adding that WHO's job is sometimes akin to "corralling kittens." The 2005 Global Health Watch report found that "transnational corporations and other global institutions--particularly the World Bank and International Monetary Fund--have a growing influence on population health that outweighs WHO's" and "some of these institutions, the Bank in particular, now operate in direct competition with WHO."

The WHO's funding is overshadowed by that of newly emerging organizations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and PEPFAR (the U.S. President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief). The Centers for Diseases Control (CDC), for example, has nearly twice the budget (PDF) of the entire WHO. The Gates Foundation's budget for global health (PDF) is around $2 billion per year, about twice the WHO's core budget.

Experts contend that the WHO, challenged though it might be, is still needed. "There is no alternative to the World Health Organization," says the CDC's Scott Dowell. "We all contribute but we will only succeed if the WHO succeeds." A 2008 report from the British parliament points out that the WHO is still extremely influential among middle- and low-income countries, and has an image of being more neutral than U.S.- or British-based organizations. The report suggests WHO's mission statement be revised to specifically give it a mandate of "preparing a strategy for global health governance." Many health experts suggest Geneva should have more control over the WHO's resources for health programs.

Add this page to Social Bookmarking websites