The G20’s pandemic-preparedness fund risks becoming just another burdensome distraction.
The pandemic is not over. While the summer of 2022 has been very different from the summer of 2020, because we now have vaccines, treatments and a better understanding of the virus, it’s not enough. Every week, 15,000 people still die from Covid-19. Poorer countries still struggle to deploy vaccines, tests, diagnostics and other tools. And countries at all income levels remain woefully unprepared for the next pandemic, even though experts warn that its arrival is a matter of ‘when,’ not ‘if’.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, global leaders have acknowledged the need for greater co-ordination, collaboration and collective financing to support improved pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). Following the recommendations of a High-Level Independent Panel, the G20 agreed in June to establish a new Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF)—hosted by the World Bank, in partnership with the World Health Organization—to help fill the $10.5 billion annual gap in PPR financing.
Outdated and ineffective
Many see the FIF as a long-overdue opportunity to change how we collectively address global common goods such as health (or climate). Under a more inclusively-governed global PPR support system, all countries would participate in decision-making and burden-sharing, and all would reap the same collective benefits. This would mean moving away from the outdated and ineffective donor-beneficiary status quo, where PPR is viewed as just another ‘development’ project. Instead, everyone would recognise that when it comes to averting global health crises, the needs, gaps, benefits and responsibilities are collective and universal, even if they are allocated unevenly around the world.
After significant advocacy by poorer countries and civil society, the FIF is being designed to embody a more equitable and balanced governance model, with decision-making split evenly between rich donors and participating countries. But the question now is whether this formal balance of interests will become an operational reality. If low- and middle-income countries don’t feel like they are in the driver’s seat of their own national PPR strategies, the FIF will quickly become an unwanted and burdensome distraction.
This outcome is even more likely if there is little money on offer. Unfortunately, FIF pledges so far total just $1.4 billion, which is around one-tenth of the world’s annual PPR financing need, according to the World Bank.
Become a Social Europe Member
Support independent publishing and progressive ideas by becoming a Social Europe member for less than 5 Euro per month. Your support makes all the difference!
Worse, there is no guarantee that such funding will be sustained over the long term, as demonstrated by the current struggles of the Global Fund, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and other institutions to replenish their funding. The Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator—which hosts the global COVAX vaccine-access facility—still has a $15.2 billion funding gap for the 2022-23 fiscal year. The tepid global response to the FIF’s initial financing push—much of which appears to be cannibalising other important global health funds—does not bode well for the future.
Health systems struggling
Moreover, even if fundraising from short-sighted rich countries were not a problem, the FIF is designed to target only a small part of global PPR financing needs. One major area it misses is national health systems. These are crucial for implementing effective pandemic responses, but even the most advanced systems are struggling to keep up in the aftermath of Covid-19.
For example, longstanding worldwide vaccination programmes are now running deficits, increasing the vulnerability of millions of children to infectious disease. And Covid-19 has channelled money away from such critical public-health priorities as combating HIV/AIDS—an enormous challenge in its own right which also increases vulnerability to Covid-19 and other diseases.
The success of the FIF’s PPR efforts requires a massive increase in financing for health systems in low- and middle-income countries, going well beyond the relatively meagre and narrowly targeted $1.4 billion, and more comprehensive and creative approaches to expanding poorer countries’ fiscal space to invest in health. For example, under the dynamic leadership of its prime minister, Mia Mottley, Barbados is about to become the first country to include a ‘pandemic clause’ in its sovereign bonds, allowing it to suspend debt repayments in the event of a pandemic. This innovation mirrors the natural-disaster clause which it introduced in its recent debt restructuring, following a series of devastating hurricanes.
Given today’s unprecedented levels of debt—which have been compounded by inflation, food insecurity and climate-related disasters—such clauses are a no-brainer. Low- and middle-income countries should start adopting them en masse.
For its part, the International Monetary Fund needs to take the lead in developing a more ambitious ‘debt-to-health swaps’ mechanism, so that countries don’t have to choose between buying essential medicines and repaying American and European hedge funds. And it should go without saying that the IMF must move away from its arbitrary and devastating austerity programmes, which consistently force countries to cut public spending and keep money in reserves even when they are facing utterly destabilising climate, health and socio-economic crises.
An inclusively-governed and well-funded FIF could make critical inroads toward preparing the world for the next pandemic, but only if it is accompanied by major reforms to the framework for financing global health initiatives. Without broader and immediate resourcing and relief efforts to stabilise the economies of low- and middle-income countries, the FIF risks becoming a sticking plaster on a gunshot wound.
Republication forbidden—copyright Project Syndicate 2022, ‘Failing the pandemic preparedness test’
Mariana Mazzucato is professor in the economics of innovation and public value at University College London, chair of the World Health Organization’s Council on the Economics of Health For All and a co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water.