Dr Sania Nishtar, Chief Executive Officer of Gavi: The Vaccine Alliance joins CNBC Africa for more.
Let's begin with the story around Gavi. In fact it was released late last week. The Vaccine Alliance being one of the organizations at risk of funding cuts from the US's America First policy under President Donald Trump. The health organization established around 25 years ago helps buy vaccines for children in poorer countries and also provides other life-saving care. Earlier I spoke to Dr Sania Nishtar, the Chief Executive Officer of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, who is currently in the US about developments since the announcement was made late last week and where things currently stand. This is what she had to say. There is a list circulating that we have also seen but just to be clear, we have not received a termination notice and we were in fact gearing up to have discussions with the administration on how to operationalize the budget which was approved by the Congress about two weeks ago. So seeing this list comes as a surprise to us. We are deeply concerned to see this and I'm here in the US to urgently speak to the administration and to bring to bear the importance of continuing to support Gavi and continuing to build further on an excellent and a very important relationship that we've had with the United States for the last 25 years. We've enjoyed bipartisan support from the US for the last 25 years and of course there are consequences to this funding cut. Over the next strategy period of Gavi, we plan to vaccinate 500 million children over a five-year period and given that around 14 percent of our budget comes from the United States, this would translate into 75 million children not being vaccinated. This would result in 1.3 million children needlessly dying from vaccine preventable diseases and of course this would compromise and water down our work on global health security through which we maintain vaccine stockpiles, through which we mobilize funds very quickly through a new fund that we've created. So we're here to explain to the US administration on an urgent basis to have discussions with them and I'm looking forward to meetings. So in the event, hypothetically speaking, that the discussions go well so we know what will happen but one can argue it will be business as usual, but in the event that perhaps the discussions prove unfavorable and some of the media reports that we've also been reading on this end here in South Africa and the position of the US in adopting this America first stance right now and the funding is in fact terminated, will your other funders be able to plug in the gap or are the consequences potentially quite severe? Well before I go to the other funders, you mentioned America first and let me explain that Gavi's work deeply matters for America first because our global health security work stops outbreaks where they happen, prevent them from spreading to the American people, keeping them safe. We work with the US industry by value. We procure, our highest procurements are from the United States. The support to the US industry creates jobs, it helps the US economy. We in fact plow back to the US economy far more than what we receive from the US and clearly the goodwill in Africa is something that is palpable firsthand, the goodwill that we bring, the US goodwill that we bring to Africa. So for all these things, for all these considerations, our work aligns with America first very deeply but to answer your question about whether other donors can step in and fill in the gap, I'd say this is too large a gap to be filled in by any donor. Our traditional donors and of course we are expanding our donor base, countries that were once Gavi recipient countries are now stepping up and becoming donors to Gavi. Indonesia is a case in point. Indonesia was once a recipient of Gavi support. Last year they contributed 30 million dollars towards Gavi's upcoming replenishment but this is the 15 percent void which I hope is not going to be the case is too big a void to be filled by any traditional donor or an upcoming donor which is why I'm here this week and I look forward to my engagement with members of the Congress, the US administration to bring to bear the importance of continuing to support Gavi because our work resonates deeply with the three goals of the new US administration. And what about maybe some of the other large funders? From my understanding the UK has traditionally been a big funder to Gavi as well as the Gates Foundation and I'm just wondering whether you are having conversations with some of your other funding partners about a potential worst case scenario and what those conversations are going like? Well we are having conversations with all our donors including the Gates Foundation, including the UK. We've seen strong statements of support for Gavi's mission by the Gates Foundation the leadership of the UK is of course strongly supportive of Gavi. We've seen Prime Minister Strzema talk about the importance of Gavi on the floor of the Parliament and we continue to have support from both sides of the aisle in the United Kingdom. So we are very hopeful that they will continue to support Gavi. Because what we have seen in the main is quite a number of countries also announcing the scaling back of their funding on aid initiatives, particularly countries coming from Europe, the likes of the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands as well. So it's not the US alone and what we've seen those countries do is redirect some of that spending to strengthen their defence capabilities as it were. So I'm just wondering how you're thinking about maybe the bigger picture or longer term picture in terms of either innovating or remodelling the funding model that Gavi has operated under all these years in this potential new era where we're in, where donors, traditional donors are announcing and could be announcing the scaling back of funds that they used to give. So this is an environment of restricted, this is a fiscal space crunch for all our traditional donors. But it is exactly in moments like these that donors should look for the best buy in public health, the best buy in the global health architecture. And we believe that due to Gavi's funding model, we are the best buy in public health for a number of different reasons. Firstly, because in our model, we don't run a charity model. This is a model in which countries co-pay, they pay for the cost of vaccines, they share the cost of vaccines, and then they ultimately transition out of support. So everybody pays, the US pays, Europe pays, the other donors pay and countries co-pay. And over a period of time, they transition out of support. 19 countries have transitioned out of Gavi support and are fully underwriting the cost of vaccines on their own. Indonesia, we just mentioned the case of Indonesia, India is another case in point. There are many countries in Africa that have transitioned out of support. Angola is a case in point. And they completely start underwriting the cost of vaccines themselves. Sustainability is hardwired in our model. And this is exactly the kind of organisations, the kind of development initiatives that should be prioritised in an environment of restricted aid budget. You did mention some of the ramifications, particularly when it does come to the facilitation of vaccines and the impact on children in terms of potential fatalities as a result of perhaps those vaccines not being administered. But I'd just like to understand also if you see any potential ramifications for the broader research community with vaccines, those that we are aware of right now, and of course, those that we potentially could be preparing for for tomorrow. So in the global health architecture, various agencies play different roles. There are agencies that support R&D. Of course, our work has an implication for R&D as well. We support tech transfers. We support bolstering of African vaccine manufacturing on the continent, which you know, is extremely important for African leaders at this point in time. And any cut, especially a cut to the tune of 15% would compromise all these abilities to a certain extent. I mean, we have deep-rooted operations in Africa. 40 countries out of our cohort of 57 countries are Africa-based. Or since Gavi's creation, we've invested close to $12 billion in Africa. We've vaccinated close to half a billion children. We've helped save 11 million lives. And of course, back to your question, research and R&D has factored heavily into this equation. And of course, if there's a funding cut, it impacts our ability to procure vaccines. It impacts the ability of manufacturers to invest more in R&D. So it's a symbiotic relationship. You upset this equation and there's a negative domino effect all the way down.
Theme: The threat of funding cuts to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, by the Trump administration poses a significant risk to global health security and could lead to severe consequences in preventing vaccine-preventable diseases.
In a recent development that has sent shockwaves through the global health community, Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, now faces the looming threat of funding cuts under the Trump administration's 'America First' policy. The implications of these potential cuts are dire, as Gavi plays a crucial role in procuring vaccines for children in poorer countries and ensuring global health security through vaccine stockpiles. Dr. Sania Nishtar, the Chief Executive Officer of Gavi, has been at the forefront of efforts to address this looming crisis, advocating for continued support from the United States. The consequences of funding cuts to Gavi could be devastating, as highlighted by Dr. Nishtar during a recent interview. Dr. Nishtar emphasized the critical importance of Gavi's work in preventing the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases and maintaining global health security. She noted that the proposed funding cuts could result in 75 million children not receiving essential vaccinations, leading to 1.3 million needless deaths from preventable diseases. Furthermore, the cuts would compromise efforts to bolster global health security, including the maintenance of vaccine stockpiles and rapid response mechanisms. The funding model of Gavi underscores sustainability and self-sufficiency, with countries gradually transitioning out of support as they co-pay for vaccines. This approach has proven successful, with 19 countries already fully underwriting the cost of vaccines on their own. Dr. Nishtar stressed that the scale of the funding gap left by potential U.S. cuts is too substantial for traditional donors to fill, making continued support from the U.S. crucial for Gavi's mission. Amidst the uncertainty surrounding U.S. funding, Dr. Nishtar has engaged with other major funders, including the Gates Foundation and the United Kingdom, to secure ongoing support for Gavi. While these partners have expressed solidarity with Gavi's mission, the broader trend of aid cuts by major donors poses a significant challenge. Countries like the UK, France, and Belgium have redirected funds from aid initiatives to defense capabilities, raising concerns about the future of global health funding. In the face of these challenges, Dr. Nishtar called for a reevaluation of funding priorities in public health, emphasizing the value and impact of Gavi's work. The alliance's contributions to vaccine manufacturing, research and development, and disease prevention have had far-reaching effects, especially in Africa where Gavi has invested billions of dollars and saved millions of lives. As the global health community braces for potential funding cuts, the ramifications extend beyond immediate vaccine delivery to broader research and development efforts. Any reduction in funding could hinder the ability to procure vaccines, invest in R&D, and disrupt the delicate balance of global health security. The symbiotic relationship between funding, research, and disease prevention underscores the urgency of preserving support for Gavi and other vital health initiatives. As Dr. Nishtar continues to advocate for Gavi's mission and engage with key stakeholders, the future of global health security hangs in the balance. The decisions made in the coming months will not only impact the lives of millions of children but also shape the trajectory of public health efforts worldwide. The stakes are high, and the time to act is now to safeguard the progress made in reducing vaccine-preventable diseases and strengthening global health security.
"Our work deeply matters for America first because our global health security work stops outbreaks where they happen, prevent them from spreading to the American people, keeping them safe. - Dr. Sania Nishtar, CEO of Gavi"
Gavi, Vaccine Alliance, funding cuts, global health security, America first, vaccine preventable diseases, vaccine stockpiles, public health, research and development