Reports Search

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic agreement negotiations begin their final two-week stretch on Monday (28 April) amid a gamble with the process, a show of unity from African member states – and more suggestions for the draft text.

This final intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) meeting will focus on finding “common ground and consensus”, according to a decision taken at the last fractious meeting.

The programme of work sets down 12-hour days, with the first week (29 April-3 May) focusing on finalising the substantive negotiations on the draft text. 

A “stock take” of progress will be held on Friday 3 May, and the second week (6-10 May) will look at outstanding articles, along with the draft resolution for the World Health Assembly at the end of May.

The INB Bureau has also undertaken to provide daily briefing to relevant stakeholders on progress.

A few health civil society organizations also issued a joint statement criticizing key aspects of the INB process and advocating for their demands. They comprehend issues of intellectual property, benefit-sharing and healthcare workers on the important aspects the current draft neglects.

Four legally binding provisions in 83 paragraphs between Article 4-24. Only 4.8% of the entire substantive provisions are legally binding. All the rest are best endeavour, opt outs, non-mandatory, general statements.

Much more here

We, the undersigned civil society organizations, are reaching out to you to underscore our grave concerns regarding the negotiation process of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) for the Pandemic Agreement.

The resumed 9 th session of the INB is the last round of negotiation prior to the 77 th World Health Assembly (WHA). The INB Bureau and the WHO Secretariat are pushing hard for acceptance of the draft Pandemic Agreement as proposed by the Bureau and the Secretariat with minimal changes, at the resumed session, setting the stage for its adoption at the 77 th WHA. While we acknowledge the importance of adopting a Pandemic Agreement earliest possible, such an Agreement must contain concrete measures and mechanisms that change the status quo, operationalize equity and foster international solidarity for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR).

On 16 April, the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, published its Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement to be discussed at the resumed session of INB9. This Proposal is based on discussions and negotiations among WHO member states that have taken place over the last two years. 

It has not been an easy two years. The spirit of solidarity that was fuelling the decision to start negotiating a Pandemic Agreement vanished quickly when proposals regarding product sharing, technology transfer, management of intellectual property (IP), access to know-how, transparency, and pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) were put on the table. These are all essential elements of greater equity in access to pandemic countermeasures.

We have been following several key elements of the equity agenda, in particular, the issues related to technology transfer and IP, including access to undisclosed information and know-how.

This Policy Brief considers the negotiating process conducted so far by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) for an instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response under the World Health Organization (WHO), and some aspects of the draft text for the Resumed Ninth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB9R), as well as of the draft proposed resolution for consideration by the World Health Assembly in May 2024. The Policy Brief provides recommendations to assist member States in their negotiations during the INB9R to be held from April 29 to 10 May 2024.

More

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the failure of voluntary mechanisms during global emergencies and exemplifies the need for effective involuntary technology transfer tools. The WHO Pandemic Accord offers an opportunity to provide an effective mechanism to build upon existing TRIPS flexibilities in the specific pandemic context. We propose a new provision (Article 11bis) that outlines a mechanism on cross-border procedure of non-voluntary technology transfer during a pandemic. This procedure could be invoked in a pandemic scenario in which voluntary technology transfer mechanisms have failed to provide sufficient supplies of a needed pandemic product.

More

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the failure of voluntary mechanisms during global emergencies and exemplifies the need for effective involuntary technology transfer tools. The WHO Pandemic Accord offers an opportunity to provide an effective mechanism to build upon existing TRIPS flexibilities in the specific pandemic context. We propose a new provision (Article 11 bis ) that outlines a mechanism on cross-border procedure of non-voluntary technology transfer during a pandemic. This procedure could be invoked in a pandemic scenario in which voluntary technology transfer mechanisms have failed to provide sufficient supplies of a needed pandemic product.

More

Earlier this week the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body released the latest draft of the Pandemic Agreement due for consideration at a resumed meeting beginning April 29^th that will see marathon negotiations with an aim to conclude this process by May 10^th.

The text is not markedly different from a previous version on which we reported on April 16th but there are certain changes – these we discuss below. The latest version has not been officially published by the INB yet.

What is also on the table is a draft resolution text that lays out the link between the main agreement and processes that would follow the adoption of the text at the Assembly including setting up of Intergovernmental Working Groups for certain provisions, immediate tasks for the WHO Director-General to follow through.  

This negotiation is taking place at the World Health Organization (WHO), but it is useful to reflect on negotiations that have taken place at the World Trade Organization (WTO), where delayed outcomes were disappointing outcomes. In the negotiations over the 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, paragraph 6 of that agreement concerned one of the most contentious topics, a restriction in the TRIPS on the exports of products manufactured under a compulsory license. That export restriction undermines the ability to benefit from economies of scale and comparative advantage, is clearly protectionist and designed to reduce the utility of compulsory licenses, has a negative impact on both exporters and importers, and has a particularly harmful impact on countries with smaller market (something noted by the WTO in DS114): 6. We recognize that WTO members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement. We instructed the Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to this problem and to report to the General Council before the end of 2002.

A draft version of the proposed negotiating text for a Pandemic Agreement, currently being discussed internally, has no reference to a dedicated fund that would help implementation of new obligations on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Such a pooled fund previously articulated in a prior text was also meant to help finance existing obligations under the International Health Regulations.

The draft version of a proposed new text from the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, also merges the provision on technology transfer with the article on sustainable production; and it merges parts of the language on compensation and liability management with the provision on supply chain and procurement.

And importantly, it presents a streamlined version on the Pathogens Access and Benefits Sharing provision with effectively no binding provisions on benefits, and kicks the can down the road, with modalities to be finalised two years in May 2026.