The World Health Organization (WHO) faces criticism for alleged increase in its number of senior directors in Geneva, prompting questions about the organization’s allocation of limited financial resources.
Concerns were raised that this growth in high-ranking personnel could divert funding away from essential public health programs as the agency grapples with budgetary challenges.
“It is time for the WHO to refocus on its mandate of improving public health, instead of spending its resources on highly paid officials who support their dogmatism, such as alienating the hundreds of millions of smokers who deserve less harmful alternatives. With the US withdrawing its support from the WHO, hiring more executives is unjustifiable,” said Anton Israel, president of the Nicotine Consumers Union of the Philippines (NCUP).
According to an analysis of WHO human resources data by Health Policy Watch, the number of D2-level directors, a senior position tier below the director-general’s immediate team, has significantly increased to 75 in July 2024 from 39 in July 2017.
The total cost for these senior positions, including the director-general’s team, was estimated at $92 million, a number that could reach $130 million if P6-level staff with similar management responsibilities are included, according to the analysis.
The analysis suggests that the majority of the new D2 positions are located at WHO’s Geneva headquarters, which is considered the organization’s most expensive location. Increases in these positions were also observed in other regions, including Africa.
The expansion in senior staff occurs against the backdrop of a projected $175-million budget deficit for the WHO in 2025. This financial strain was exacerbated by the withdrawal of funding from the United States, which previously contributed around 15 percent of the WHO’s income.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced several cost-cutting measures. These include a hiring freeze, reductions in temporary staff, and the establishment of committees to evaluate further efficiency measures. The WHO has also stated that it has implemented restrictions on contract extensions and offered early retirement options.
Critics said, however, these cost-saving measures disproportionately affect lower-level staff while the number of high-ranking directors continues to rise.
Suggestions for alternative approaches include relocating staff to regional and country offices, reducing the number of top-level positions, and implementing a merit-based human resources strategy. Concerns have also been voiced regarding the transparency of staff costs, as publicly available salary figures reportedly do not include allowances and benefits.
The WHO’s reliance on consultants has reportedly increased, with contract numbers more than doubling since 2018. A report cautioned that this trend could potentially lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and skills within the organization.
WHO spokeswoman Margaret Harris said the organization is focused on “cost containment” and the reallocation of resources towards country-level programs.
Critics called for greater transparency in staff expenses and a “recalibration of the pyramid,” prioritizing efficiency and effectiveness with cost-cutting measures at the highest levels. The WHO has not provided specific comments regarding the reported increase in D2 positions and overall staffing costs.
Israel also raised concerns about the WHO’s reliance on private funding, citing potential conflicts of interest. He particularly cited Bloomberg Philanthropies, which was previously accused by the Philippine Congress of intervening in local policies.
He said that during a congressional inquiry into the Food and Drug Administration’s receipt of foreign money to fund regulations for non-combustible alternatives to cigarettes, Congress condemned the practice of private organizations influencing national policies through grants to government agencies.
“The WHO can still fulfill its mandate of promoting health and safety while helping the vulnerable worldwide by actually extending medicines and vaccines to those that need them the most and not by engaging in endless debates on whether modern technologies such as smoke-free products should be banned or not,” Israel said.
He also criticized the upcoming WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Conference of the Parties (COP 11), claiming it would be a waste of funds and a platform for pushing a specific agenda.
Israel said WHO directors might again pressure countries to accept its prohibitionist dogma during COP 11 without listening to the millions of consumers and stakeholders.
Israel asked the WHO to set aside its bias and consider real-world evidence on the benefits of reduced-risk products rather than imposing broad restrictions that could hinder smokers from accessing safer alternatives.