Two months have already passed since the WHO declared an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. The Continental Preparedness and Response Plan established in June by the Africa CDC and the WHO demonstrates African countries’ coordination effort in tackling the new form of deadly hemorrhagic fever known as Bundibugyo. However, in the face of the fastest-growing Ebola outbreak on record, health needs are growing at an alarming pace, while the response remains painfully under-resourced. In only a few weeks, the number of confirmed cases tripled, rising from 650 to nearly 2,000 by 12 July, whilst the number of deaths more than quintupled, rising from 130 to over 700. Concerns continue to mount over a potential spread to South Sudan. In the meantime, 8% of funding needs have been actually disbursed to respond to the epidemic (less than US$120 million out of US$1,4 billion). This questions the credibility of the G7 Leaders’ call for a strong and coordinated response issued last month, despite its explicit acknowledgment of the need for additional funding.
As a reminder, despite an unprecedented international mobilisation amounting to nearly US$ 2 billion, the 2014-2016 West African Ebola epidemic claimed more than 11, 000 lives across Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Today’s outbreak arises after years of declining external support and preparedness investments. Despite the mobilisation of organisations created since previous health emergencies like CEPI and the Pandemic Fund, which both launched specific response plans, the needs remain considerable. There is no more time to waste. An inadequate riposte will translate into delayed surveillance, delayed treatment and continued transmission leading to lost lives and further spreading of the virus.
If France and the EU are serious about playing a leading and reliable role as global health partners, it must stop treating global health as an optional budget line that can be sacrificed in times of fiscal pressure. They must both provide timely emergency funding to international agencies that respond to epidemics through research, development and delivery of diagnostics and surveillance, treatments and prevention means like vaccines. They should also support partner countries in building truly resilient laboratories, surveillance, research and health systems capable of preventing crises before they spread, in order to progressively erase dependence on external assistance during crises. For that, in addition to the 84 million euros support in humanitarian aid, development and research funding, the EU must prioritise long-term, predictable investments in community-led resilience and global health infrastructure. This approach must be structurally embedded in the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework and the Global Europe Instrument. France should specify its contribution to the response effort without delay, in alignment with its Global Health strategy, and equip itself within its next budgets with the necessary financial means to act.
Ultimately, before the next crisis strikes, will governments proactively invest in the systems that keep us safe or continue to erode them through short-sighted neglect?
;
