
World Health Organization spends more on travel than AIDS - dacm
https://www.apnews.com/1cf4791dc5c14b9299e0f532c75f63b2/AP-Exclusive:-Health-agency-spends-more-on-travel-than-AIDS
======
yk
And is the WHO primarily an aid agency, where very high travel costs would be
a problem, or is it primarily a coordination body, where high travel costs
would be the point? The article is just missing this piece of information how
is the WHO supposed to work. (Next exercise for journalists, supposed
according to the people who founded it, not supposed according to the guy who
writes about it.)

More concretely, if the primary mission is getting high level officials into
one room to talk about malaria, AIDS, etc. then travel expenses is precisely
what the WHO is designed to do. If the WHO is designed to ship medication to
third world countries, then it may be, that the WHO is doing it wrong. However
travel into third world countries is expensive, you need to rent a car, hire
translators, get equipment that can keep vaccines cool during transport, etc.
It may be that these expenses are billed as travel expenses and only the
actual vaccine is billed as cost of malaria. In that case the travel expenses
should raise an eyebrow, but is still only some indication that something may
either be wrong or the accounting is not optimal for PR purposes.

Actually that is a argument I notice too often, X should work like this and
they're doing it wrong, according to the author, and when one looks into the
matter a little bit, then it turns out that the organization in question has
very good reasons to not work like this.

~~~
brudgers
Another expense in areas with ongoing humanitarian crises or less stable
government institutions is security. It tends to be expensive.

------
brudgers
Because the WHO is part of the United Nations, it operates primarily in
diplomatic circles. This means protocols matter. For example, when negotiating
with local officials on the ground, the political implications for the local
officials are different if the party with whom they are negotiating arrives in
a limousine from a top hotel or arrives by bus from the Motel6. One allows the
local official to present the negotiated result as a compromise between
equals, the other may provide an opportunity for political opponents to cast
compromises and concessions or just plain reasonableness by the local official
as weakness.

The WHO has a unique _political_ capability in regard to reaching consensus on
international health policies. It is better equipped to get political
commitments from local political leaders when it comes to issues like getting
medical supplies across the borders of a dozen countries. In no small part
this is because the WHO provides the cover of legitimacy for local political
leaders. And with no doubt part of that legitimacy comes from the WHO's
ability to project an image of power...it is backed up by UN peace keeping
policies. As with diplomacy in general, the WHO travel budget is cheaper than
military deployment.

~~~
kbart
I don't buy this, it still sounds like hypocrisy. The power of WHO (and UN)
doesn't come from their image, but from the fact that they are backed by the
mightiest nations on Earth. I'm sure WHO representatives would be taken
seriously by some local bureaucrats even if arrived to the meeting on
bicycles.

~~~
brudgers
There are several aspects of what I described that do not align with the way I
would like the world to work and would prefer if alternative methods were
practical. In the world of politics and diplomacy, I don't think they are
because politics and diplomacy require engagement with actors who are not
driven by scientific methods, generally praised moral theories, or a strong
sense empathy or who simply cannot do positive things without first caring for
their political survival.

The WHO has the political ability to operate at the ministerial and executive
level above regular bureaucracy. A technocrat may not care if a senior WHO
official arrives on a bicycle, but the WHO does not always deal with
technocrats and a meeting planned with a technocrat may turn out to be a
meeting with a politician as well or instead.

That's part of why protocols matter for the WHO more than for Médecins Sans
Frontières. Protocols also matter more for the WHO because its primary role is
at the diplomatic level even during an emergency. During the same emergency,
Médecins Sans Frontières primary mission is on the ground delivering services
at the endpoint.

------
gus_massa
Does the WHO buy most of the vaccines and treatments, or most of the countries
buy their own doses?

This looks like a true but misleading title, like "The United Nations Security
Council spends more in coffee than in tanks, battleships and bombers combined"

~~~
dogma1138
The WHO isn't a direct aid organization.

It's a political organization it defines policies and helps to execute and
oversee them.

If say a country needs vaccines the WHO can help them secure funding usually
through the world bank or other financial institutions as well as potentially
better prices by facilitating deals with the drug companies directly.

People think that the WHO is the red cross or Doctors Without Borders or the
UNHCR.

But in its mandate and in practice it's more closer to the IAEA and other
similar UN organizations.

------
John23832
I think these kind of comparisons are a little miss guided.

WHO is a world organization, so by definition they have to travel the world.
Every time you get in a plane, car, or train, that costs. On top of that, a
lot of their work has to be done in person. You can't test a local population
in Africa for a specific strain of ebola in a lab in North America. A team has
to be sent to do that work and exfiltrate samples. Also, there often has to be
a person on the ground directing. If I'm working with a warlord to ensure the
safe movement of medical supplies, that's better done in person.

I can do all the AIDS, TB and malaria research I want in a lab. We have
samples that were previously taken and can be mailed. I can share my findings
with people on the other side of the world with the help of the internet.

To top my argument off, even if you could reduce spending on travel, that
doesn't directly translate into more effective fighting of AIDS, TB, or
malaria. Many of the people that are able to do the most effective work in
these fields are already doing so. Just throwing more money in the pot doesn't
necessarily speed up the process. And not to get political, but if you want to
look at allocations of money for medical research, look at the _HUGE_ cuts
that are about to happen at the National Institute of Health.

~~~
kbart
I think you've missed the point here. It's not against traveling, but
traveling in first/business class. Most other similar charities have explicit
decree that forbids traveling first/business class and mandates even the
highest ranking officials to travel economy class.

~~~
zimzam
Having always flown economy I recently took advantage of a cheap, domestic
upgrade to business class. I had to work while on the plane and I was
noticeably more productive on the flight and less fatigued than I normally
would be in economy. So I think there is an argument to be made for the
following categories of trips to be a step above economy:

* when the traveller is expected to get work done on the flight * when the time at the destination is short (1-3 days) and is densely packed * when the traveller is moving immediately from flying to being productive on the ground

Otherwise after flying economy it would only take a good, relaxed meal and/or
a 20 minute catnap to bring me to post-business class levels of productivity.

------
giarc
>Three sources who asked not to be identified for fear of losing their jobs
told the AP that Chan often flew in first class.

I have no problem with this. There are many reasons why the Director General
should fly first class. For one, she is a very public figure and I imagine
first class will offer a bit more privacy.

Second, to attract the best, you sometimes need to provide the best.
Unfortunately not everyone is 100% altruistic, so perks such as first class
travel might help to persuade some people. I get into this discussion every
time the compensation of my provincial health CEO is brought up (Alberta
Health Services CEO). People complain that she makes more than $500k per year.
They assume that people working for the public shouldn't make that amount.
They seem to forget that she is responsible for an organization with 110,000
employees and a budget of $21.4 billion. That carries a ton of responsibility.

------
greydata
Just to be clear, they spend $200MM on travel for 7000 people a year, that's
~$75/day/person.

------
atonse
It's like this at the world bank and IMF as well.

Their senior staff travel like royalty in first class and often their fancy
luggage is also paid for.

There's no doubt that these organizations like the WHO do a lot of good. But
the perception of this definitely does hurt them when they want to get more
funds.

------
mcguire
" _Dr. Bruce Aylward, who directed WHO’s outbreak response, racked up nearly
$400,000 in travel expenses during the Ebola crisis, sometimes flying by
helicopter to visit clinics instead of traveling by jeep over muddy roads,
according to internal trip reports he filed._ "

If he needs to visit more than one site per day, the jeep is provably not
workable. The next article we're likely to see is one saying the WHO had
dropped off equipment and then left the locals with no instructions or
coordination for weeks.

~~~
dismantlethesun
Also these are not safe areas. If you drive by road you will get stopped by
bandits. It's certainly happened to me.

------
Xoros
I had the chance to briefly meet (22 years ago) an Harvard Teacher who was
also involved in AIDS research with UN.

He was going to go to Nepal to meet local doctors and authorities.

He had to "fight" to get a normal airplane ticket instead of the first class
his organization was ready to pay him.

Because the first class ticket was more expensive than the Nepal AIDS fighting
year budget...

