The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing criticism for expanding its senior leadership in Geneva.
Critics warned that the increase in directors strains the organization’s limited financial resources, potentially diverting funds from crucial public health programs amid existing 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 U.S. withdrawing its support from the WHO, hiring more executives is unjustifiable,” said Anton Israel, president of the Nicotine Consumers Union of the Philippines (NCUP).
An analysis of WHO human resources data by Health Policy Watch indicates a substantial rise in D2-level directors, a high-ranking position below the director-general’s senior team. The number of these directors reached 75 in July 2024, a significant increase from 39 in July 2017.
The total estimated cost for these senior positions, including the director-general’s team, is about $92 million. That figure could potentially rise to $130 million when including P6-level staff who hold similar management responsibilities.
The hiring analysis indicates that the majority of the new D2 positions are at WHO’s Geneva headquarters, the organization’s most expensive location. Significant increases were also noted in other regions, including Africa.
The expansion occurs as the WHO faces a $ 175 million budget deficit for 2025, exacerbated by the United States’ withdrawal of funding, which previously accounted for about 15 percent of the WHO’s income.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced cost-cutting measures, including a hiring freeze, reductions in temporary staff and the formation of committees to assess further efficiencies. The WHO said it also implemented restrictions on contract extensions and offered early retirement options.
Critics contend that these measures disproportionately affect lower-level staff, while the number of high-ranking directors continues to grow. They suggest relocating staff to regional and country offices, reducing top-level positions and implementing a merit-based human resources strategy. Concerns were also raised regarding the transparency of staff costs, as published salary figures do not include allowances and benefits.
The WHO’s reliance on consultants has also increased, with contract numbers more than doubling since 2018. The report warned that this trend could lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and skills.
WHO spokeswoman Margaret Harris said the organization is focused on “cost containment” and shifting resources to country-level programs.
Critics are calling for greater transparency in staff expenses and a “recalibration of the pyramid,” emphasizing efficiency and effectiveness, with cost-cutting measures prioritized at the highest levels. The WHO has not provided specific comments regarding the 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.
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 would again pressure countries to accept its prohibitionist dogma during COP 11 without listening to the millions of consumers and stakeholders most concerned.
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.
