WHO

Member State information session on the proposed programme budget 2026-2027

25 March 2025

EU statement

Chair, Distinguished colleagues,

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the European Union and its 27 Member States.

Switzerland aligns itself with this statement.

We thank the Secretariat for organising this information session on the proposed programme budget 2026-2027 and the prioritisation process. Having a transparent dialogue with Member States on the prioritisation exercise is crucial.

Faced with an unprecedented crisis, WHO and the whole global health system need to adapt to the new budgetary and geopolitical reality and undertake further structural reforms. Successful implementation will require revisiting the originally proposed programme budget 2026-2027, with necessary adjustments and possible budget reductions based on cost containment measures, fund raising and reprioritisation. Success will also depend on the acceleration of the governance reform and efficiency gains which are equally essential for WHO’s sustainable functioning.

In this vein, the EU and its Member States would like to make the following points: 

1. In reprioritising, WHO should, within the framework of GPW14, focus on core functions where WHO has (1) the mandate, (2) the expertise, (3) is best placed to deliver outcomes and impact, while (4) doing what no other international organisation can do better. This prioritisation process must necessarily rely on transparent methodological criteria rooted in scientific evidence, oriented towards impact on the ground. As core functions, we see in particular: (1) its normative and standard-setting role, (2) its leading and convening role in global health including its evidence-based, technical and analytical steer to inform actions by Member States and global health actors, as well as to strengthen national health capacity-building, (3) its coordinating role in public health, including emergency preparedness, prevention and response. 

2. The bottom-up exercise undertaken by WHO regarding activities at HQ, regional and country level, will help identify priorities as well as work which could be deprioritised, with the relevant optimisation of staff and other costs. It remains crucial to ensure that this exercise minimises any potential loss of internal expertise, preserving the WHO’s capacity to effectively deliver on its mandate. Activities to be de-prioritised should include amongst others: 1) those falling outside the GPW14 or future GPWs, 2) those which have not proven an unequivocal, measurable and significant health outcome/impact, with due account to health equity, 3) those where WHO is not best placed to deliver results, 4) those outside the WHO’s core functions and falling under the mandate of other international or regional organisations, national governments, or other global health initiatives, due account taken of WHO’s work as actor of last resort, in order to avoid duplication, 5) those that have parallel workstreams within WHO, 6) those that involve duplication at different levels of the organisation. Moreover, within the prioritised actions, an immediate focus should be on actions requiring urgent attention, pushing back those that can be done at a later stage. Likewise, activities and procedures should be reviewed to become more efficient. 

3. The new budget reality thus requires comprehensive efficiency gains and significant cost containment measures at HQ, regional, and country level, where it is important to avoid duplications and to ensure transparency and accountability of resource allocation and spending. We ask the Secretariat to propose prudent and realistic resource scenarios which adapt to the new reality. This includes reviewing the necessary personnel corresponding to the successful implementation of prioritised activities and exploring the potential of partnerships with, for example, Member States, civil society or WHO collaborating centres, to ensure activities despite economic constraints. Can the Secretariat elaborate on such plans in the short, medium and long term in order to match resources with the new priorities?

4. In the face of global challenges, the WHO remains the cornerstone of the global health architecture. The Constitution of the WHO mandates the WHO ‘to act as the directing and co-ordinating authority on international health work’. With a number of international health organisations, funds, or programmes currently undergoing similar funding crises, governance reforms and reprioritisation processes, it is crucial to secure WHO’s role in global health, ensuring that it is equipped with the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate effectively in the context of the new reality. We call on WHO’s top management to lead this coordination with other UN bodies and global health actors. This will be crucial to ensure that the labour division leads to de-prioritisation of parts of the WHO work programme that other partners could potentially step in to cover or are already doing and vice versa.

5. In the short term, we express our concern with respect to the implementation of the 2025 programme budget given the current financial situation and immediate and increasing funding gap in the coming months. In this regard, we would like to ask for more detailed and updated information on the existing and emerging funding gaps in 2025, in particular, from where funding is channelled to pay salaries in May 2025 and going forward, and about the human resources measures.

6. Given the urgency of addressing the current budgetary situation, sustainable and flexible funding mechanisms should remain a key objective to ensure the long-term stability of the WHO.

7. Re-prioritisation concerns us all, and going forward, we need to be cognisant of the implications of adding new work to WHO’s agenda. We need to ensure that there is a clear added value in doing so and that any such work is in line with the identified priorities of governing bodies meetings. 

8. Member States need clarity on next steps, and we thank the Secretariat for providing the work plan. For future meetings, it is important that WHO clearly communicates to MS if they need concrete MS feedback to WHO proposals in meetings or if these sessions are just for information purposes. If MS feedback is required, MS require to see options that should be discussed at least a few days prior to the meeting. We ask the Secretariat for concrete proposals on reprioritisation and the criteria applied for urgent and timely consultation. We recommend that WHO complements the bottom-up exercise with a structured mechanism for Member State feedback through standardised consultation tools, including periodic surveys and regional consultations, to capture evolving national priorities. 

Additionally, we would be interested to hear from the Secretariat, how WHO sees the future of sustainable health financing overall? To what extent does WHO consider innovative funding to be part of that sustainable future and is financial innovation a path that is currently being explored within WHO itself?

We want to emphasise our unwavering support and commitment to WHO and its staff, at all levels, WHO’s work is indispensable to build a healthier and sustainable future for WHO and for us all. It is essential that, together, we set the Organisation on a sustainable path.

Thank you