Reports Search

Text-based Negotiations on Pandemic Agreement Begin at WHO, But Too Late. Proposed One Health Instrument Adds to Complexity  

WHO member states finally began text-based negotiations on a new Pandemic Agreement at WHO this week after more than two years since the process commenced. This comes far too late, with just over a handful of negotiating days left to conclude this process. As a result, the risk of a weak text emerging out of this process is nearly certain now.

The outcome of such an agreement will have implications worldwide – if done badly it could complicate the governance of pandemics, observers say. If nothing is done, status quo will preserve existing paradigms on how the world responds to health emergencies – it will be a missed opportunity. There is no time left within existing timelines to do this well, unless countries find a way of continuing these vital reforms work in the coming months and years with a commitment to find lasting, meaningful change towards Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response.

“Get this done” – and if you disagree, don’t block consensus, was the heartfelt plea made by World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyessus to member states negotiating a pandemic agreement on Friday (3 May).

Tedros was addressing the ‘stocktake’ in the middle of the final 10-day meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating body (INB), and it was clear that member states were nowhere close to the finish.

More

WHO member states finally began text-based negotiations on a new Pandemic Agreement at WHO this week after more than two years since the process commenced. This comes far too late, with just over a handful of negotiating days left to conclude this process. As a result, the risk of a weak text emerging out of this process is nearly certain now.

The outcome of such an agreement will have implications worldwide – if done badly it could complicate the governance of pandemics, observers say. If nothing is done, status quo will preserve existing paradigms on how the world responds to health emergencies – it will be a missed opportunity. There is no time left within existing timelines to do this well, unless countries find a way of continuing these vital reforms work in the coming months and years with a commitment to find lasting, meaningful change towards Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response.

Later today, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body will decide on the way forward for this process. We will update this story subsequently.

A crucial stocktake of the state-of-play of the World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic agreement talks on Friday afternoon (3 May) will determine the way forward for the final five days’ negotiations.

But progress has been slow in the past four days, according to reports – with differing opinions about whether a skeleton agreement can or even should be nailed down in time for the World Health Assembly (WHA) at the end of the month – or whether it should be deferred for another year.

An array of civil society organisations wrote to WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyessus last week expressing concern that the Bureau co-chairs of the intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) are pushing hard for countries to adopt an agreement that “perpetuates the status quo, entrenching discretionary, voluntary measures and maintaining inequitable access as the norm for addressing PPPR” [pandemic preparedness, prevention and response]. 

On the second day of the resumed session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) on the pandemic instrument two Working Groups started text-based negotiations on Articles 4, 10, 14 and 17.

The resumed session 9^th INB session started on 29 April in hybrid mode at the WHO headquarters in Geneva.

Currently there are three working groups focusing on the following articles.

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body set up to establish a new Pandemic Agreement resumed its discussions this week in a final lap aiming to conclude the negotiation, with numerous hurdles along the way to the finish line including process concerns, divergence on key issues and factors external to the World Health Organization.

Crunch time dawns in the hallways of WHO, where 194 countries are meeting to hash out a new legal instrument in a desperate face-saving exercise running against a vengeful clock. All-too-familiar fears of a H5N1 outbreak are snapping at the heels of governments, as they grapple with the big questions of a new health emergency architecture – from surveillance to financing, from Pathogen Access and Benefits-Sharing to One Health.

The resumed meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) on the pandemic instrument has initiated negotiations in a working group and other informal discussion to push for consensus.

A working group was constituted to discuss Articles 4 and 5 i.e. on pandemic prevention and surveillance. Further, Germany has convened an informal meeting to discuss issues around Article 7 dealing with health and care workforce. 

TWN reports the individual positions of some countries in key discussions regarding Articles 4 and 5. Africa & Bangladesh championed equity, while UK & EU drove the discussions on surveillance & One Health.

More here

Negotiations surrounding the Pandemic Treaty continue as the deadline for endorsing the new mechanism approaches. However, the version under discussion fails to address critical issues pertaining to health equity.

The next round of Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) negotiations for the Pandemic Treaty began on April 29, following two years of discussions. With the treaty text set to be finalized at the World Health Assembly at the end of May, uncertainties persist regarding the current state of negotiations, marked by numerous unresolved issues. The main question remains: will the Treaty genuinely fulfill its promise of equity and justice, or will it merely pay lip service to these ideals?

On Monday 29 April negotiations started and, as TWN had been reporting, the modalities proposed by the INB Bureau - which had already sidelined developing countries, excluded them from informal negotiations and altogether erased language proposed by them - have reiterated these effects during the INB session for key provisions.

More here