Ambassador Ischinger,
Dear colleagues and friends,
For 20 months I have been saying, “Good morning, good afternoon and good evening,” so today I’m delighted to be able to say just “good morning”.
And after 20 months of saying “I wish I could be with you in person,” I’m delighted to actually be with you in person.
Thank you, Ambassador, for your welcome, and thank you to the Munich Security Conference for organizing this morning’s discussion and for your leadership.
Wolfgang, you remember well that when I spoke at the Munich Security Conference in February last year, I said that this new disease, COVID-19, was “public enemy number one” and that it was very dangerous.
At the time, some people were skeptical, and asked me whether I was exaggerating.
But I could see how seriously the Munich Security Conference took it.
First, you gave me the platform because you knew this was serious.
At the same time, I remember you were taking all the right precautions, such as with sanitizers.
But after the speech there were people who came to me and said “are you exaggerating by saying ‘public enemy number one’.” But it was, and it still is, I am sad to say.
Since then, COVID-19 has become the defining crisis of our age. It will shape the world for decades to come.
The question is, how?
What lessons can we learn from the pandemic, and what changes must we make to prevent the next one?
As you know, there have been several reports and reviews seeking to answer those questions.
There are literally hundreds of recommendations, but as we have studied them, we see four core themes.
First, all of the reports recognize the need for better systems and tools to prevent, prepare for, detect and respond rapidly to epidemics and pandemics.
As you know, together with Chancellor Merkel, I will have the honour of opening the WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence here in Berlin this afternoon.
This is an exciting new centre that will harness the power of new technologies to improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of information.
Other initiatives include the Universal Health and Preparedness Review – a new mechanism for enhancing national preparedness – and the establishment of the WHO BioHub in Switzerland, for the storage, sharing and analysis of pathogens. This will address one of the major problems we are facing in the sharing of biological materials.
Second, all of the reports recognize the need for better financing for national and global preparedness and response, including for global goods such as vaccines.
There’s no question that more money is part of the solution. In our view, it’s vital that any financing facilities are built using existing financial institutions, rather than creating new ones that would further fragment the global health architecture. These are the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which have very strong links with each and every country. They can mobilize global resources but they can also mobilize domestic resources.
Third, all of the reports recognize the need for better global governance of pandemic preparedness and response.
We believe the proposed treaty on international pandemic preparedness and response will provide a much-needed foundation for global cooperation, setting the rules of the game for a more coherent and coordinated response to future epidemics and pandemics.
And fourth, all of the reports recognize the need for a strengthened, empowered and sustainably financed WHO at the centre of the global health architecture.
With 194 Member States and 152 country offices, WHO has a unique global mandate, unique global reach and unique global legitimacy.
But it has been progressively weakened over several decades, especially through the distortion of its finances, whereby 80% of our funds are now voluntary contributions, almost all of which are earmarked, effectively making WHO a contractor for the wealthiest donors.
In the 1980s, our assessed contributions were more than 80% while voluntary contributions were less than 20%, but now it is 80% voluntary contributions and less than 20% assessed contributions, which denies WHO its independence. It is not just a money issue, it is an independence issue.
Redressing this imbalance is critical if WHO is to be the independent, authoritative institution the world needs it be.
We very much appreciate Germany’s support for WHO in this area, including the leadership of Björn Kümmel in the Working Group on Sustainable Financing.
With the UN General Assembly in September, the G20 Summit in October and the Special Session of the World Health Assembly in November, the next three months will be a critical period for shaping the future of pandemic preparedness and response.
Whatever structures and mechanisms emerge, WHO believes they must be grounded in several core principles:
They must have the engagement and ownership of all countries;
They must be linked to and aligned with the constitutional mandate of WHO, rather than creating parallel structures;
They must involve partners from across the One Health spectrum, including animal and environmental health, civil society and the private sector;
They must ensure coherence with the International Health Regulations and other international instruments;
And, more importantly, they must be accountable.
Of course, there is much more that could be said, but I hope that provides a useful starting point for discussion.
Thank you again Ambassador Ischinger for your leadership.
Thank you.
