What is the pandemic accord and why have negotiations been so difficult?
The accord – conceived during Covid to prevent and respond to pandemics – will top the agenda at the World Health Assembly
Global health leaders will gather in Geneva on 27 May at the annual World Health Assembly, where a new agreement for countries to work together to prepare for, prevent, and respond to pandemics – known as the “pandemic accord” – will top the agenda.
It was first proposed by world leaders in early 2021, with a promise to avoid the mistakes of the Covid-19 pandemic next time around.
The negotiating process, involving almost 200 countries, has proved challenging, and the plan has been subject to what the World Health Organization’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, called “a torrent of fake news, lies and conspiracy theories”.
Talks are likely to go down to the wire, and a finished text may not be ready by the assembly deadline. But those involved say this is an opportunity to make the world safer – and fairer – that humanity cannot afford to miss.
What is the idea behind the accord?
The Covid-19 pandemic had a devastating impact globally. About 7 million deaths have been attributed directly to the virus, but indirect deaths are thought to be at least double that. The disruption caused by the virus saw poverty and hunger increase. Health systems were no longer able to reliably provide the regular care people needed, and people living in poorer countries were often the hardest hit.
The promise of the accord was to make sure that the world was better prepared for, and protected from, future pandemics – with equitable access to the tools needed to stop potential pandemic outbreaks in their tracks, as well as vaccines and treatments.
Announcing the plans, world leaders said a treaty would be “our legacy that protects our children and grandchildren” and promised to “be guided by solidarity, fairness, transparency, inclusiveness and equity”.
Has it worked out that way?
Many campaigners have expressed disappointment as details of the negotiations have emerged. This month, Global Justice Now accused rich countries of “refusing to learn the lessons of the Covid-19 pandemic” and of blocking moves to take on the vested interests of big pharma companies.
Others have questioned the need for a treaty at all, suggesting that it will not necessarily solve the problems that appeared during the Covid pandemic, with countries likely to ignore any elements of a treaty they disagree with during an emergency.
Dr Precious Matsoso from South Africa, the co-chair of the intergovernmental negotiating body overseeing the talks, said that progress was being made and promised “a meaningful, lasting agreement”.
And there is a sense it needs to be seen through. Michel Kazatchkine, a former member of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, said: “It is worthwhile, because it is providing a foundation. It’s highly unlikely that it will answer all of the challenges that are on the plate – but I think a failure would be really terrible for the multilateral system, for the world of solidarity that we all want to see in the future, for WHO, for the United Nations system. So we need to work very hard until the last minute to get something.”
What stage are negotiations at?
This week, negotiators have been meeting nearly every day from 9am to 9pm in a bid to finish negotiations in time for the assembly.
It follows multiple negotiating sessions that have seen draft texts put forward and pulled apart. The latest publicly available draft suggests there has been agreement in many areas, including around the need for countries to “strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population”. It includes plans to establish a “conference of the parties (Cop)” to regularly review the agreement’s implementation, and promises of additional financial resources for lower-income countries.
But there are still areas with real sticking points, including the issue of “pathogen access and benefit sharing”. If poorer countries grant richer nations – and their big pharmaceutical companies – access to materials and information on pathogens that could become a pandemic, can those poorer countries be guaranteed access to any resulting vaccines and medicines? More recent drafts of the accord have suggested such a system could be agreed in principle, but details have been pushed back for later discussion.
It is not yet clear whether the accord will be a treaty – giving it greater force in international law – or a regulation.
Does the accord take away countries’ sovereignty?
The accord has been the subject of vast amounts of misinformation and disinformation, including false claims that the agreement would give the WHO the power to impose lockdowns, or require countries to give away a fifth of their vaccines.
A WHO spokesperson responded to recent similar claims by the UK’s Nigel Farage by saying such claims were “false and have never been requested nor proposed. This agreement will not, and cannot, grant sovereignty to WHO.”
But in many countries, the discussion has become politicised and concerns about sovereignty have hit mainstream politics. This month, the UK health minister, Andrew Stephenson, told the Commons that the current text was “not acceptable” to the UK government, stressing that “protecting our sovereignty is a British red line”. In New Zealand, too, negotiators have been told to prioritise sovereignty.
The draft text of the agreement reaffirms “the principle of the sovereignty of states in addressing public health matters” and recognises “the sovereign right of states over their biological resources”.
Five key points in proposed pandemic agreement
By AFP
May 23, 2024
The equitable distribution of pandemic-related products such as vaccines has been at the heart of the pandemic agreement negotiations - Copyright AFP AHMAD AL-RUBAYE
Countries are trying to finalise a global agreement on how to prepare for and avert pandemics by Friday evening, after two years of negotiations triggered by the horrors of Covid-19.
Here are five key sections of the draft agreement being discussed by national negotiators at the World Health Organization’s headquarters in Geneva, according to a draft seen by AFP:
– Pathogen access, benefit sharing –
The core of the agreement is the proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS) — a new platform allowing the swift sharing of pathogen data with pharmaceutical companies, enabling them to quickly start working on pandemic-fighting products.
This has been the trickiest part to negotiate.
Developing countries have expressed concerns about handing over data if there is a risk they might be cut off from accessing the resultant vaccines, as was largely the case at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under PABS, countries would commit to rapidly sharing data on emerging problematic pathogens, and that the vaccines and other benefits derived from accessing that information would be shared on a more equitable footing.
But while the principle is widely supported, the detail is not.
Countries are debating whether PABS should involve pharmaceutical manufacturers giving 10 percent of their production to the WHO for free for global distribution — for example, to protect frontline health workers worldwide.
A further 10 percent could be given to the WHO at a not-for-profit price.
– Prevention and surveillance –
Under this section, countries would take steps to progressively strengthen their pandemic prevention and surveillance capacities.
Subject to resources, countries would develop, strengthen and implement comprehensive national pandemic prevention plans.
This would include things like routine immunisation, managing biological risks in labs, preventing antimicrobial resistance, and stopping transmission of diseases from animals to humans.
This section has largely been agreed upon by working groups, but is awaiting final sign-off.
Negotiators are also debating whether, or how, to broaden the scope of the agreement to include surveillance of animal and environmental health in the bid to spot pandemic threats.
But some worry this is stepping beyond the WHO’s remit.
– Financing –
Article 20 of the draft agreement deals with sustainable financing.
Some developing countries simply don’t have the resources to implement Western levels of pandemic preparedness and pathogen surveillance.
Developed nations meanwhile are reluctant to foot the bill for them without concrete commitments in return.
As the draft stands, countries would agree to maintain or increase domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
They would also mobilise additional money to help developing countries implement the agreement, through grants and concessional loans.
– Supply chain and logistics –
In an attempt to smooth out the flaws exposed by Covid-19, a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network would be set up for equitable, timely and affordable access to pandemic-related health products.
During pandemic emergencies, countries would prioritise sharing pandemic-related health products through the network so that they can be distributed equitably based on public health risk and need.
Each country would also be asked to avoid stockpiling pandemic-related health products that unnecessarily exceed the quantities needed.
Switzerland, for instance, destroyed more vaccines against the virus causing the Covid-19 pandemic than it ever administered during the crisis.
– Vaccine mandates, lockdowns, travel bans –
WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has repeatedly warned of unprecedented misinformation and disinformation surrounding the pandemic agreement negotiations — notably over what the agreement would allow the WHO and its chief to do.
Amid accusations that the deal would enable the UN health agency to encroach on countries’ sovereignty over their health policies, the draft text specifies that “nothing” in the agreement should be interpreted as giving the WHO “any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe” national or domestic laws, or impose other requirements such as banning travellers or imposing vaccination mandates.
By AFP
May 23, 2024
The equitable distribution of pandemic-related products such as vaccines has been at the heart of the pandemic agreement negotiations - Copyright AFP AHMAD AL-RUBAYE
Countries are trying to finalise a global agreement on how to prepare for and avert pandemics by Friday evening, after two years of negotiations triggered by the horrors of Covid-19.
Here are five key sections of the draft agreement being discussed by national negotiators at the World Health Organization’s headquarters in Geneva, according to a draft seen by AFP:
– Pathogen access, benefit sharing –
The core of the agreement is the proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS) — a new platform allowing the swift sharing of pathogen data with pharmaceutical companies, enabling them to quickly start working on pandemic-fighting products.
This has been the trickiest part to negotiate.
Developing countries have expressed concerns about handing over data if there is a risk they might be cut off from accessing the resultant vaccines, as was largely the case at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under PABS, countries would commit to rapidly sharing data on emerging problematic pathogens, and that the vaccines and other benefits derived from accessing that information would be shared on a more equitable footing.
But while the principle is widely supported, the detail is not.
Countries are debating whether PABS should involve pharmaceutical manufacturers giving 10 percent of their production to the WHO for free for global distribution — for example, to protect frontline health workers worldwide.
A further 10 percent could be given to the WHO at a not-for-profit price.
– Prevention and surveillance –
Under this section, countries would take steps to progressively strengthen their pandemic prevention and surveillance capacities.
Subject to resources, countries would develop, strengthen and implement comprehensive national pandemic prevention plans.
This would include things like routine immunisation, managing biological risks in labs, preventing antimicrobial resistance, and stopping transmission of diseases from animals to humans.
This section has largely been agreed upon by working groups, but is awaiting final sign-off.
Negotiators are also debating whether, or how, to broaden the scope of the agreement to include surveillance of animal and environmental health in the bid to spot pandemic threats.
But some worry this is stepping beyond the WHO’s remit.
– Financing –
Article 20 of the draft agreement deals with sustainable financing.
Some developing countries simply don’t have the resources to implement Western levels of pandemic preparedness and pathogen surveillance.
Developed nations meanwhile are reluctant to foot the bill for them without concrete commitments in return.
As the draft stands, countries would agree to maintain or increase domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
They would also mobilise additional money to help developing countries implement the agreement, through grants and concessional loans.
– Supply chain and logistics –
In an attempt to smooth out the flaws exposed by Covid-19, a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network would be set up for equitable, timely and affordable access to pandemic-related health products.
During pandemic emergencies, countries would prioritise sharing pandemic-related health products through the network so that they can be distributed equitably based on public health risk and need.
Each country would also be asked to avoid stockpiling pandemic-related health products that unnecessarily exceed the quantities needed.
Switzerland, for instance, destroyed more vaccines against the virus causing the Covid-19 pandemic than it ever administered during the crisis.
– Vaccine mandates, lockdowns, travel bans –
WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has repeatedly warned of unprecedented misinformation and disinformation surrounding the pandemic agreement negotiations — notably over what the agreement would allow the WHO and its chief to do.
Amid accusations that the deal would enable the UN health agency to encroach on countries’ sovereignty over their health policies, the draft text specifies that “nothing” in the agreement should be interpreted as giving the WHO “any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe” national or domestic laws, or impose other requirements such as banning travellers or imposing vaccination mandates.
AFP
May 23, 2024
The talks are being held behind closed doors at the WHO's headquarters in Geneva - Copyright AFP Fabrice COFFRINI
Robin MILLARD
Countries trying to thrash out a global agreement on handling future pandemics are hoping to seal the deal Friday after weeks of creeping progress in exhausting talks.
Having ploughed past several previous deadlines, the hard stop of next week’s annual gathering of the World Health Organization’s 194 member states is now in clear sight.
Scarred by the devastation caused by Covid-19 — which killed millions, shredded economies and crippled health systems — WHO member countries have spent two years trying to hammer out binding commitments on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
The bureau steering the talks must report back to the World Health Assembly — the WHO’s supreme decision-making body — regardless of whether or not they have a finalised text for the assembly to consider.
Amid arm-twisting, horse-trading and 3:00 am finishes in recent weeks, the talks have gathered momentum.
However, with much ground left to cover, breaking the remaining logjams by the end of Friday seems a long shot.
“The fact that we’re still making progress shows people are willing to push further. And there’s a sense that even if we can’t conclude, we will reach the World Health Assembly with something concise,” one ambassador in the talks told AFP.
– Gradually going green –
The talks are being held behind closed doors at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva.
One source in the room said negotiators were optimistic, and could see the finishing line and a way to get there.
“The mood in the room: you see it, you feel it, people wanting to get onto the next thing,” the source said.
But civil society groups following the talks from outside the hall seemed less positive.
“They are negotiating, enthusiastically fighting for a speedy conclusion — but it’s not happening,” K. M. Gopakumar, senior researcher with the Third World Network, told AFP.
Giving the talks very little chance of successfully concluding on time, he said he thought countries would likely press for discussions to continue.
Others suggested countries might opt to present the assembly with a skeleton deal and show agreement in principle.
The assembly could then call for the process to pick up and carry on later in the year.
The rolling draft agreement is not being made public, but a version as it stood on Thursday, seen by AFP, showed large sections have been approved.
In recent days, growing chunks of text have been highlighted in yellow — meaning the wording has been agreed to in small working groups — and then ultimately highlighted in green once approved by all countries.
The 32-page draft contains 34 articles, with 12 fully green and 18 partially green. The four others are almost all in yellow.
Gopakumar said negotiators had this week “greened a few non-contentious areas”, but on “all issues which are contentious, there is no consensus”.
– One more heave –
The main disputes revolve around issues of access and equity: access to pathogens detected within countries, and access to pandemic-fighting products such as vaccines derived from that knowledge.
Other tricky topics are sustainable financing, pathogen surveillance, supply chains, and the equitable distribution of not only tests, treatments and jabs, but also the means to produce them.
Ellen ‘t Hoen, a lawyer with the Medicines Law and Policy NGO, lamented that proper negotiations over the text’s wording had only started within the final round of talks.
“Perhaps the ambition of doing this in two years was a bridge too far, the fastest-ever negotiated UN treaty,” she said.
Going into the final phase, Precious Matsoso, co-chairing the talks, acknowledged that “the more we move towards the assembly, the more complex it becomes”.
Co-chair Roland Drice added: “The attempt is to get as far as we can get.”
“Without compromises, it will not work.”
WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus this week urged negotiators to give it “one last big push to get it over the line”.
He has also urged wavering countries not to block the consensus needed to clinch an agreement.
But on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken dampened hopes of a deal, saying a conclusion this week seemed “very unlikely”.
Nonetheless, Washington was still working to ensure that “we’re better prepared for next time”, he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment