Connect with us

Finance

Who Will Finance Countries' Pandemic Response: Pandemic Fund, WHO Or A New Entity? – Health Policy Watch

Published

on

Who Will Finance Countries' Pandemic Response: Pandemic Fund, WHO Or A New Entity? – Health Policy Watch
COVID-19 screening in Bangkok, Thailand: Financing future pandemic preparedness and response is unclear.

Many practical questions about how the pandemic agreement will be implemented – including how to finance countries’ pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) – seem likely to be ceded to the Conference of Parties (COP).

According to the latest pandemic agreement draft, a “Coordinating Financial Mechanism” will support the implementation of the pandemic agreement and the International Health Regulations (IHR) (see Article 20).

“There’s a key debate with Article 20 within the negotiations about whether the coordinating mechanism should be hosted by the Pandemic Fund, the World Health Organization (WHO), or whether a new entity should be created,” Professor Garrett Wallace Brown, chair of Global Health Policy at the University of Leeds, told a Geneva Global Health Hub (G2H2) media briefing on Tuesday.

“There’s seemingly little appetite for a new institution, and there is a strong narrative being promoted for the Pandemic Fund in order to decrease fragmentation,” added Wallace Brown, who is director-designate of new WHO Collaboration Centre for Health Systems and Health Security.

The Pandemic Fund’s Priya Basu has made a strong bid for her entity to become this mechanism, telling Devex this week that a new fund to support PPPR would mean “duplication”.

Advertisement
Professor Garrett Wallace Brown, chair of Global Health Policy at the University of Leeds

But Wallace Brown said that “final decisions about the details of the coordinating mechanism are being offloaded to the Conference of the Parties (COP), which I think is a wise decision given the circumstances”. 

“There are only nine negotiating days left and there are lots of details to work through. But I think it’s only wise if the COP is representative, inclusive, proportional to risk and deliberative, meaning a move away from business as usual.”

In conversation with delegates involved in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) thrashing out the pandemic agreement, Wallace Brown said that “what they want to do is make the wording strong enough to show that there’s a commitment to a coordinating mechanism and a commitment to financing those”.

In addition, they were “being somewhat more clear about what types of financing and what types of mechanisms would be housed underneath that, but offshoring those details for 12 months – I’m suggesting 24 months – to try to work out exactly how that is done”. 

Domestic funds?

According to the draft, the financing mechanism would include a pooled fund for PPPR, and may include “contributions received as part of operations of the [Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System], voluntary funds from both states and non-state actors and other contributions to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties”.

Advertisement
G2H2 co-chair Nicoletta Dentico

However, G2H2 co-chair Nicoletta Dentico warned that poorer countries were mired in debt and debt cancellation should be a consideration to help these countries.

“Fifty four low-income countries with severe debt problems had to spend more money on debt servicing than on the COVID disease in 2020,” said Dentico, who heads the global health justice program at Society for International Development (SID).

“Contrary to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the [pandemic agreement] text opened for the final negotiations stubbornly ignores the repeated calls for legal safeguards that are indispensable to immunise the treaty implementation and financing from vested corporate interests,” added Dentico.

Mariska Meurs from the Dutch health NGO WEMOS, warned that “domestic funding for pandemic prevention preparedness and response must not undermine other domestic public health priorities”. 

“The draft pandemic treaty text worryingly includes ‘innovative financing mechanisms’, which often means using public funds not for heath, but to attract private-for-profit investors. Instead, the pandemic treaty should embrace the most obvious and fair avenues for funding pandemic prevention, preparedness and response: global tax justice and debt cancellation”.

Advertisement

“But undermining other domestic public health priorities is exactly what we’ve seen happening under COVID-19. We’ve witnessed the shifts in global and domestic funding and how funding for basic health care has gone down,” warned Meurs.

“The text, as it lies before us now, does not acknowledge or try to remedy this.”

Mariska Meurs from the Dutch health NGO WEMOS

“The draft pandemic treaty text worryingly includes ‘innovative financing mechanisms’, which often means using public funds not for heath, but to attract private-for-profit investors. Instead, the pandemic treaty should embrace the most obvious and fair avenues for funding pandemic prevention, preparedness and response: global tax justice and debt cancellation,” said Meurs.

Pandemic Fund ‘black box’

Low and middle-income countries are more in favour of the pandemic financing mechanism being housed in the WHO “because they see it as being more representative” than the Pandemic Fund, said Wallace Brown.

But donors “are less keen because they see it as a mechanism that would give them less control of how funds are spent”.

Advertisement

However, for the Pandemic Fund to become the PPPR mechanism would require “radical changes” not “minor tweaks as we’re currently being told”. 

Some of the problems with the fund, are that it only focuses on three elements of PPPR and this “creates vertical silos”, and there is no explicit guidance in the fund’s governance framework on “how equity will be addressed in either the fund process or with reference to prioritise beneficiaries of programmes”, according to Wallace Brown.

In addition, the first round of funding was eight times over-subscribed but the selection process “was not clear”.

“Applications that met the scorecard threshold for funding had to be rejected, and it remains unclear exactly how the governing board made their final decisions,” he added.

Describing his personal view on the way forward as “agnostic”, Wallace Brown said he had been studying the Pandemic Fund for a while and “think it’s a bit of a black box”. 

Advertisement

However, the WHO would need capacity building to become the mechanism 

“They do handle funds, they have the contingency fund for emergencies. They are able to make funding available to people and have processes for that, but they don’t have it at the same scale as a World Bank,” he said.

“Or there could even be a third entity. So at the moment, I’m remaining agnostic. I think there needs to be better analysis, better evidence to decide what works and what doesn’t work” – and these kinds of details “won’t be decided in nine days”.

Image Credits: Prachatai/Flickr.

Combat the infodemic in health information and support health policy reporting from the global South. Our growing network of journalists in Africa, Asia, Geneva and New York connect the dots between regional realities and the big global debates, with evidence-based, open access news and analysis. To make a personal or organisational contribution click here on PayPal.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

Fayette County Public Schools Board of Education approves audit contract, new finance director position

Published

on

Fayette County Public Schools Board of Education approves audit contract, new finance director position

LEXINGTON, Ky. (WKYT) – The Fayette County Public Schools Board of Education approved a one-year audit contract capped at $131,750 plus $225 per hour during a virtual meeting Monday, along with a new finance director job description.

The contract is with Mauldin & Jenkins Certified Public Accountants, an Atlanta-based firm, and covers the 2025-26 fiscal year and the restatement of the 2024-25 fiscal year and ancillary services through FY 2029-2030. The work is set to be completed by Nov. 15.

The board approved the contract in a 5-0 vote.

Audit contract details

Interim Chief Financial Officer Kyna Koch said the cost is already accounted for in the district’s budget.

“And is actually less than we expected given our current situation — we were thrilled with the bid,” Koch said.

Advertisement

Koch said she believes this is Mauldin & Jenkins’ first school district audit in Kentucky, but that the firm works with school districts of more than 100,000 students throughout the Southeast.

“Quite frankly when I spoke to the folks at KDE they were thrilled because we’re running kind of short of auditors who want to do school district audits — so all around I think this was a win-win for everyone,” Koch said.

New finance director position

The board also approved a new job description for the position of Director of Finance. Acting Superintendent Dr. Bill Bradford said the title will replace two associate director positions.

“Which will not only save the school district money but it’s also going to streamline our work and align internal controls to make room for a more efficient unit,” Bradford said.

Koch said the position will be posted as soon as possible following the board’s approval.

Advertisement

Closed session

The board went into closed session for more than an hour to discuss pending investigations that could lead to employee discipline. When the board returned, it took no action and adjourned the meeting.

Copyright 2026 WKYT. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Finance

UK Watchdog Urged to Consider Broader Oversight of AI Financial Firms | PYMNTS.com

Published

on

UK Watchdog Urged to Consider Broader Oversight of AI Financial Firms | PYMNTS.com

The UK’s financial regulator should consider expanding its oversight to cover advanced artificial intelligence models used in financial services, according to a review commissioned by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as policymakers assess whether existing rules can keep pace with rapidly evolving AI technology.

According to Bloomberg, the review recommends that the FCA evaluate whether large language models developed by companies including OpenAI and Anthropic should fall within the regulator’s remit if they play an increasingly significant role in consumer financial services. The report was led by Sheldon Mills, an executive director at the FCA, and was published on Monday.

The review concludes that the UK’s current activity-based regulatory framework does not require a wholesale overhaul. However, it warns that continued advances in AI capabilities and wider adoption of AI-powered financial products could expose gaps in existing oversight if technology providers increasingly influence regulated financial activities, Bloomberg reported.

Among its recommendations, the report calls for a review of the FCA’s regulatory perimeter and suggests strengthening the regulator’s authority under the UK’s Critical Third Parties regime. Such changes could allow the watchdog to exercise greater oversight of technology providers whose services have become integral to financial markets, including major AI developers and cloud infrastructure companies.

The recommendations reflect growing concern that artificial intelligence is reshaping how financial products are designed, distributed and used. Banks and other financial institutions are increasingly deploying generative AI to support customer service, fraud detection, compliance functions and financial guidance, while consumers are also turning directly to general-purpose AI tools for financial information.

Advertisement

The review also raises broader competition and market structure issues. As financial institutions rely on a relatively small number of AI model developers and cloud computing providers, operational dependencies could become concentrated among a handful of technology companies. That concentration may create systemic risks if disruptions or failures affect widely used platforms, while also potentially shifting market power away from regulated financial institutions toward large technology providers.

Those concerns mirror recommendations made earlier this year by the UK Parliament’s Treasury Committee, which urged the government to designate major AI and cloud providers as Critical Third Parties, arguing that regulators need stronger supervisory tools as digital infrastructure becomes increasingly central to financial stability.

The FCA launched the Mills Review in January to examine how artificial intelligence could transform retail financial services by the end of the decade. The consultation considered AI’s impact on competition, consumer behavior, market structure and the regulatory framework, with the aim of identifying whether financial regulation should evolve alongside technological change.

According to Bloomberg, the FCA will now consider the report’s recommendations, including whether its regulatory responsibilities should be expanded to reflect the growing influence of general-purpose AI systems in financial services. Any changes to the regulator’s statutory powers would require action by the UK government and would form part of broader efforts to balance innovation, consumer protection, financial stability and effective competition as AI adoption accelerates.

Source: Bloomberg

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

MAS moves to rein in autonomous AI agents in finance

Published

on

MAS moves to rein in autonomous AI agents in finance
MAS

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the city state’s central bank and financial regulator, has joined forces with major financial institutions and FinTechs to release a white paper aimed at keeping AI agents in finance operating within safe limits.

The paper, called Safeguards for Agentic Finance at Runtime (SAFR), lays out an industry-built framework designed to let AI agents perform financial tasks in a manner that is safe, secure and dependable. It has been produced under BuildFin.ai, the MAS programme that backs the responsible creation and rollout of AI tools across the financial sector.

The push comes as AI agents take on more autonomous work at a pace that makes hands-on human oversight impractical. In response, firms require real-time controls that keep agent behaviour inside the mandates, policies and risk limits they have defined. SAFR answers this with a series of governance checkpoints that check and log each action an agent proposes before that task is carried out.

The framework extends the AI Risk Management toolkit created through MAS’ Project Mindforge, concentrating on how protections can be put into practice at the moment an agent acts. The white paper maps out how measures such as policy bound execution, real time validation, auditability and interoperability can be woven into system operations, giving institutions the confidence to deploy agents consistently.

Industry participants have already tested SAFR in several settings. These include agent-assisted payments and treasury work, where agents handle routine transactions inside set mandates to cut friction and lift efficiency; wealth management and advisory processes, where agents examine documents and produce structured assessments within tightly defined task limits to speed up compliance reviews; and client engagement, where agents create insights and draft materials within approved content boundaries so staff can serve clients more productively.

Stay ahead of the regulatory curve. Subscribe to FinTech Global’s newsletter today, and read the daily FinTech news for the strategic intelligence and early insight industry leaders rely on.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2026 FinTech Global

Investors

The following investor(s) were tagged in this article.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending