Reports Search

We understand that often policy-making happens in the context of inadequate information, even we do not have all the answers. But taking decisions where there is helpful evidence at hand is usually good use of history. Devising a medical countermeasures platform for future health emergencies is a case in point. It appears there is greater convergence between New York and Geneva processes on the discussions around Pandemic Preparedness and Response, than initially expected. While some diplomats worry that certain issues may be working at cross-purposes to Geneva negotiations, we will have to wait to see how these discussions will evolve.

The resumed session of the 5th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body concluded without a consensus to initiate textual negotiations on the Bureau’s text for a WHO Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (pandemic instrument).

The resumed session concluded at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva on 16 June 2023, after a weeklong deliberation. Paragraph 3 of the meeting report, adopted at the conclusion of meeting states: “The INB considered the Bureau’s text as a basis for further work on the understanding that the INB may continue to refer to the compilation text.”

Countries around the world have set a deadline of next May to produce a final draft of a global treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response — a major step in efforts to strengthen the global architecture around health security.

During the World Health Assembly held in Geneva in May there were calls for countries to meet this deadline because another pandemic could be just around the corner.

“I urge you to deliver the pandemic accord on time as a generational commitment. The next pandemic will not wait for us, and we must be ready,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, said.

But it's not an easy feat ensuring the world’s countries are on the same page and willing to compromise in a meaningful way — raising questions around whether that deadline is realistic.

Roland Driece, a co-chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body Bureau on the pandemic accord, said that while it would be ideal for countries to meet the deadline, he is concerned the timeline isn’t realistic given the complexities involved in getting the world’s countries to agree on an international treaty. “I'm not pretty confident,” he said. Driece said other efforts to bolster the global health infrastructure that’s consuming the attention of countries — mainly amendments to the International Health Regulations — could also slow down the process. Countries also have different priorities on what they want in the treaty and aren’t in agreement on all the issues — and it will take time to find a consensus. Efforts must be put into ensuring all countries are able to participate in the process of crafting the treaty, which can also be time-consuming. Some groups are also calling for a simulation exercise to test out the agreement before countries sign on, which is another step added to the timeline.  

The head of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has warned that innovative financial instruments and private sector mobilization are only of limited use when it comes to helping the world’s poorest people.

Speaking to Devex ahead of a summit in Paris this week, designed to strike a new pact between wealthy and low-income countries, Peter Sands said that getting multilateral development banks to stimulate private investment in low-income, conflict-affected countries “is not going to really work … because you are not going to get rational private capital investing significant sums in those parts of the world.”

The resumed session of the 5th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body concluded without a consensus to initiate textual negotiations on the Bureau’s text for a WHO Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (pandemic instrument). … According to a developing country delegate, “as a basis for further work” in paragraph 3 of the report does not necessarily mean “the Bureau’s text is the negotiating text”. Later, the same delegate also pointed out the fact that even the Bureau’s co-chairs have said that the Bureau’s text is not the first draft or the negotiating draft during the informational briefing session held on 5 June, before the resumed meeting. The closing statement of countries identifying themselves as a Group for Equity explicitly stated that no textual negotiations took place during the resumed session. 

Priti Patnaik with Tessa Jager & Shoa Moosavi

The negotiations on the pandemic accord took a decisive turn this week when the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body met to discuss the Bureau’s Text, where the thorniest of issues including on research and development, liability, access and benefit sharing, among others, were considered in detail.

Countries essentially accepted the Bureau’s Text, as the basis for negotiations, even as they are expected to bring their proposals to this version to improve it at every level, diplomatic sources indicated. Recall that the Bureau’s Text is built on the extensive compilation text which reflects all proposals made so far by WHO member states. But the Bureau’s Text does not include many of the provisions submitted by countries.

At the end of this week’s negotiation on the pandemic accord, Roland Driece, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) charged with drafting a pandemic accord, told the final plenary on Friday that “it’s not easy” – a phrase that he repeated four times in the space of minutes.

To ease difficulties, the INB piloted a new approach involving informal sessions to “bridge gaps” on the sidelines of the formal drafting session, Driece said. 

Two informal sessions were held on one of the trickiest aspects of the negotiations: Article 9 (Chapter Two) of the current pandemic accord draft, dealing with the research and development (R&D) of pandemic products. Mexico and Norway facilitated the sessions, while experts were on hand to respond to technical questions.

Meanwhile, in the formal drafting committee, member states “exchanged views” on Articles 9 (R&D), 10 (liability risk management), 11 (technology transfer), 12 (access and benefit-sharing of pathogen), 13 (supply chain) and 14 (regulatory strengthening).

As an interim step to a first draft of the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Treaty, a new text has recently been released that was intended to reflect proposals that countries had submitted and to serve as a framework for the deliberations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB)[1] at its meeting from 12 to 16 June 2023. While the updated text mentions equity as a principle and recognises the importance of ensuring fair access to pandemic-related health products, medicines and technologies, it fails to clearly set out the set of legal obligations required to achieve this objective, and many of the options put forward are geared towards maintaining the status quo rather than progressing towards a new paradigm. Chapter II deals with the articles most directly related to equitable access.

Salud por Derecho would like to draw attention to the following areas that need to be improved in the text:

In today’s edition, we bring you a guest essay on the lessons from the negotiations on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that could offer clues on tackling and understanding the beast we are confronted with today - the negotiations towards a Pandemic Accord. As a range of stakeholders from overworked diplomats, to resigned activists try to keep up the momentum in these crucial and important negotiations, we hope you find this contribution useful.

Leah Shipton, who works at the intersection of public health and political science, has authored this essay, distilling the past into an insightful analysis relevant for current global health negotiations, while also noting how the nature of the beast has changed over the years.