Reports Search

This statement was delivered by Medicines Law & Policy at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), Session 12 (resumed), 4 December 2024

Thank you, co-chairs. We focus our remarks on issues related to technology transfer. Timely access to technology and relevant know-how is essential to pandemic preparedness and response and equitable access to pandemic products.

Voluntary agreements to achieve this, on mutually agreed terms, were always possible. The reality of Covid-19 however has shown that the will to share IP, technology and know-how by rights holders is very limited. Therefore additional action by governments is necessary and this needs to be reflected in the Agreement. 

In this context, a clear statement – known as the peace clause – that parties will not exert any direct or indirect pressure on countries that useTRIPS flexibilities is essential should be included in Article 11.4.

Read more here

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Our comments relate to Article 11, and specifically the definition of technology transfer which should be improved. We refer to our statement from Monday, and emphasise that meaningful technology transfer provisions are essential to what this agreement is meant to achieve. Access to know-how is a critical part of technology transfer, and references to it should remain in the final text. 

It might be advisable to use an existing definition of technology transfer as the basis for the new footnote 1(j) under Article 11.

Read more here

A pandemic agreement will only be meaningful if its provisions contribute to changing the status quo. This is particularly important to ensure equity in access to pandemic products. The text before us does not meet this requirement and will need strengthening in the area of pathogen access and benefit sharing and access to and sharing of IP and know-how, including undisclosed information.

Equitable access will also require expanding production capacity in various regions of the world to be ready well before the next pandemic and this requires transfer of technology, know-how and IP.

Read more here

Our goal is clear: to craft an agreement of the highest caliber. We envision a treaty that sets new standards in global health governance, one that is more than merely serviceable but truly transformative. To achieve this, the Africa Group insists on elements of equity and solidarity in all its provisions for all people, everywhere. An agreement not based on equity will be a betrayal to 18% of the world population which is not only the poorest, but also with the health systems that are already challenged to cope with pandemics. Therefore, we cannot accept an agreement not founded on equity. This principle must be fundamental to the treaty, ensuring no nation or individual is left behind in our global response to pandemics.

Full statement here

The World Health Organization (WHO) has resumed the negotiations for a legally binding international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The goal is to conclude the negotiations in time for adoption by a special session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in December 2024, or at the Seventy-eighth WHA in May 2025.  

The Group of Equity in the negotiations taking place in an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) brings together a large number of developing countries.

Click here for the statement delivered by Malaysia on behalf of the Group of Equity at the opening of the 12th session of the INB on 4 November:

Special index page with links to over 35 editions of GHF, including a series of exclusive stories, guest essays, interviews, podcasts from the second quarter of 2024 between April and June, compiled by Sana Ali.

Group 1 'Treaty talks' comprises posts regarding the WG IHRs and the INB for a pandemic agreement. See in particular the posts regarding the politics of the Africa position and various reports regarding pathogen access and benefit sharing, financing, 'equity', and technology transfer.

Group 2 includes a range of posts, including comments on WHA77 and WHO financing (the 'investment round').

Group 3 includes a number of guest essays, including One Health and PABS in the draft pandemic agreement

1. The Kyoto Biennial Conference of the International Law Association was convened remotely as in December 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic precluded in-person gatherings. The Lisbon Biennial in July 2022 was among the first in-person events attended by many of its participants as the shadow of the pandemic dissipated. As the ILA prepares for its Athens Biennial in June 2024 the international community has largely returned to “normalcy” from a public health standpoint. Yet unfinished business from the COVID-19 pandemic remains as we seek to lay the groundwork for preventing and mitigating future pandemics. In a paradoxical sense, the COVID-19 pandemic opened a window of opportunity for governments and civil society to put in place institutional mechanisms to accomplish these objectives. Yet that window may not remain open for long. Planning and spending time to address low probability, high risk events – paradigmatically pandemics -- does not occupy a high government priority because returns on investment are uncertain, and political leaders are not likely to be credited by their constituencies for spending to address uncertainties.

"MSF welcomes these new amendments to the IHR as an important first step towards addressing inequity in access to medical care and health products during global health emergencies. As a medical humanitarian organisation responding to emergencies globally, we are encouraged to see explicit recognition of the need to ensure access to health products during health emergencies, including in humanitarian settings.

“As the INB negotiation is extended for another year, we urge WHO member states to remember the clear lessons learned from the past health emergencies, from Ebola virus disease to COVID, follow the example of the IHR amendments, and complete the package of measures needed for a just framework for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. 

More

After years of back-and-forth talks on how to best protect the world from the next pandemic disaster - World Health Organization Member States remain at a stalemate - with lower-income countries still lacking access to lifesaving health commodities and the ability to secure vital technologies and know-how during global public health emergencies - issues world leaders must rectify immediately.

As the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) convened this year in Geneva, there was much anticipation as to the fate of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. For the last two years, Member States have been engaged in negotiations to create an agreement to prevent a repeat of the COVID-19 global health catastrophe - a human tragedy that is less about a virus and more about nationalist protectionism, corporate profit interests, and unacceptable inequity.

Member States of WHO secured a desperate win in reaching consensus on the amendments to the International Health Regulations, following more than two years of systematic and intense negotiations, culminating in an astonishing agreement in the final hours of the 77^th World Health Assembly. The consensus assumes greater significance in an otherwise difficult meeting of WHO member states this year, that was fraught with several political resolutions laced with rounds of voting among 194 countries.