Reports Search

Well-intentioned decision to switch oral polio vaccines in 2016 backfired, new draft report says

Something momentous happened in the history of polio eradication in April 2016: Over a period of 2 weeks, 155 countries and territories started to use a new version of Albert Sabin’s classic oral polio vaccine (OPV) that no longer protected against one of the three types of poliovirus. Type 2 virus had been eradicated by then, and the only remaining type 2 polio cases were touched off by the live virus in the vaccine itself. Dropping the type 2 component from the vaccine would end those cases as well, the thinking went.

Hosts to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the European Union and the U.S., drew four African countries into an exclusive closed-door informal meeting on May 3, in a bid to bridge positions on the proposed mechanism on Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing [PABS] – a cornerstone to the new Pandemic Agreement under negotiation at World Health Organization, diplomatic sources and experts familiar with the development said.

The African countries invited to the meeting reportedly include Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa. Sources said that this was an invitation-only meeting, suggesting that not  all countries were aware of it, and were not a part of such a meeting that took place along the sidelines of the on-going meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body currently underway till May 10^th.  

(By the time this story went to print, no responses were received to our queries sent on Sunday evening to all five countries and the EU, seeking more information on the meeting. We will update this story if we receive any responses subsequently.)

Halfway to the 2030 deadline for Universal Health Coverage, the world is severely off track. Nearly half of the global population lacks access to essential health services, with one in four facing devastating healthcare costs

May 05, 2024 by WHO-Watch Team

A discussion on UHC during session of World Bank Group Spring Meetings, 2014. Photo: Simone D. McCourtie / World Bank

 Discussions on the pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS) system were often tense, on at least two occasions, when the Co-chair of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) tried to shut down the Africa Group’s proposals on the matter.

The resumed 9^th session of the INB is meeting in Geneva from 29 April to 10 May to negotiate a legally binding instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

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.

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.

“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

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]. 

The United States on 26 April appears to have adopted a “diversionary” stance on Colombia’s proposal for a comprehensive review of the implementation of the World Trade Organization’s controversial TRIPS Agreement, saying that it is ready to accommodate the issues as a review of the domestic implementation of the Agreement, which is contrary to the mandate, said people familiar with the development.

At the WTO’s TRIPS Council meeting that concluded on 26 April, the US position seemed like skirting the main issue of a comprehensive review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, which is supported by many developing countries, said people familiar with the discussions.

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.