Skip to main content

ACTION Partnership recommendations on the Financial Intermediary Fund for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response

By 14 June 2022October 4th, 2023No Comments

COVID-19 has highlighted the urgent need for collective action and increased investments in pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPR). In April 2022, the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors reached a consensus in establishing a new Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF) at the World Bank for this purpose. 

The World Bank is proceeding quickly to develop this new fund. It has released a White Paper that was shared with stakeholders for feedback at the end of May. The FIF proposal will be submitted to the World Bank Board for approval by end of June.

We believe the White Paper poses serious concerns on the strategic value-add of this fund, on issues around transparency and inclusivity, especially in its decision making, and its ability to enhance rather than duplicate existing global health institutions efforts.

The ACTION Partnership, a global health advocacy partnership composed of over 15 locally rooted, independent organizations including Global Health Advocates, has collectively outlined high-level recommendations framed around the FIF’s principles, financing, governance, and operating modalities. We want to ensure that this new fund for PPR can efficiently support the country and regional capacity needed to react to the next crisis and fill a gap in the existing global health security ecosystem.


  • The FIF should clearly articulate its plans for mobilizing and leveraging resources outside existing ODA, and not rely primarily on ODA, while also highlighting ways in which it will catalyze private funding, beyond foundations. It should also clarify its intention to support vs. duplicate the roles and capacities of existing institutions like the Global Fund, WHO, CEPI, Gavi and Unitaid in PPR, and fill clearly defined gaps in the existing architecture
  • The FIF should implement a consistent but flexible approach with multi-year funding that would be more efficient for working with implementing entities and can also allow for regional  approaches and better support health sovereignty.
  • The FIF should incorporate a proper seat at the table that would allow for full  participation and voting rights for recipient countries, across income categories, but also critical stakeholders like the WHO and other institutions like the Global Fund who have the required expertise and capacity to guarantee the successful implementation of strong PPR. The governance of the FIF needs to recognize the essential contributions of civil society and affected community organizations beyond their role as “observers” and provide representation within the decision-making body.
  • The FIF should better articulate the value-add to PPR efforts by existing institutions and clearly indicate how it will collaborate with and fund multilaterals, including clarifying the ability of other key global health institutions, including Global Fund, CEPI, Gavi, as well as UN agencies, to be implementing entities for the FIF.