In Seoul, South Korea, dozens of countries are gathering this week to discuss the future of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), which seeks to protect the world from infectious disease threats and has formed the backbone of biosecurity initiatives across the globe for more than three years.
The World Health Organization, along with representatives from numerous ministries of health and other global health security stakeholders, are holding meetings Wednesday and Thursday that will focus on identifying sustainable financing and ways to increase and improve efficiency in global and domestic health funding. On Friday, the GHSA will hold a steering group meeting in Seoul.
The stakes are high, according to many organizations.
In the lead-up to the conference, more than 100 health and health security organizations, including the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), banded together in a call for the GHSA’s continued operation for at least another five years. The current lifespan of the organization is scheduled to conclude in 2019, and members are currently hammering out what form future operations would take.
“The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) is an irreplaceable and proven mechanism for promoting measurable change in international preparedness to prevent and combat biological threats,” Elizabeth Cameron, senior director for Global Biological Policy and Programs at NTI, wrote in a blog supporting the organization. NTI aims to prevent attacks with weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and cyber threats.
“We urge all GHSA participating countries, permanent advisors, and supporting organizations to take a firm decision to extend the GHSA beyond its current endpoint of 2019 – at a minimum for another five years. We also urge all countries to make and implement specific commitments, with a focus on financing strategies to fill gaps identified by external evaluations,” Cameron wrote.
The GHSA has bridged a number of gaps in the world’s previous consideration of biological threats. Not only has it developed and implemented global metrics for national health security, it has provided on the ground support as recently as with the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and established a means for independent evaluation of countries’ capabilities to respond to those threats. The organization also has aided training of public health professionals and mobilized both private and public sectors through guidelines on pandemic preparedness.
While the GHSA was launched in February 2014 with notable U.S. support from the Obama administration, there had been concerns from some circles as to whether the U.S. would continue to support the organization under the Trump administration. The president’s budget has openly called for massive cuts to health funding.
However, in May, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price supported the GHSA. And Homeland Security Adviser Thomas Bossert emphasized that support earlier this month, stating that the administration planned to give “full-throated support” to the GHSA, and was currently working on a comprehensive biosecurity strategy with involvement from retired Admiral Tim Ziemer.
Cameron believes this support could keep the United States in a leadership role among the organization.
“In terms of how the U.S. is funding things in the future, I agree it’s a dichotomy,” Cameron said in an interview with Homeland Preparedness News. “It’s important we maintain U.S. leadership. When we lead, others tend to follow. We can’t afford to stop our leadership role. That should mean strengthening our funding and support in countries with capability gaps.”
“There are some big decisions that need to be made before then about personnel supporting GHSA, but we also need to keep our eyes on biosecurity funding, at the Department of Defense and others,” Cameron added. “In addition to endorsing continued U.S. leadership in global health security, it’s also important we continue to finance that leadership role.”
For those who ponder the need for other countries’ involvement in biological episodes, Cameron points out that funding for health and health security programs helps stop outbreaks at the source. They aren’t simply foreign assistance – they are investing in each nation’s preemptive security.
“The programs the U.S. funds save lives and avoid billions in economic losses and avoid political instability,” Cameron said. “These programs are homeland and national security, and I believe they should be treated as such — not just as foreign assistance. It brings benefits to the U.S. in terms of peace and security.”