After almost three years of negotiations, we all know the process: the INB opens with a publicly webcast session which, for the most part, involves the various delegations thanking the INB Bureau, the Secretariat and each other for the progress made and then, after several long hours, the meeting moves into the “closed” substantive drafting session where the real discussions take place and where, we the people, don’t get to listen.
Opening Session INB12
The opening session of INB12 has proven to be no different to any of the previous eleven meetings. The session on 4th November was opened by co-chair Precious Matsoso:
“People keep asking ‘but why do we need a treaty?’ …every time we look at a particular article we have to ask ourselves, ‘Are we fixing the mischief that we identified? Are we solving the problem that we were asked to resolve?'”
Precious handed over to her co-chair Anne-Claire Amprou for her opening remarks:
“Our populations, our governments are looking at us, looking at the progress we will make to conclude the Pandemic Agreement which will make the difference for the future to prevent from, prepare for and respond to the next pandemic.”
UK Citizen takes issue with the opening comments of both co-chairs: it is impossible to assess whether a treaty is needed without a full, frank and transparent investigation into the mistakes made by the WHO and member states during the last “pandemic” which, to date, has not happened. Furthermore, the claim that “populations” are looking to the INB to agree a Pandemic Agreement is nonsensical as the vast majority of the populations have no idea such an agreement is being negotiated because mainstream media, across the world, has failed to cover it!
Anne-Claire handed over to the Director-General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (DG) for his opening remarks:
“You face a balancing act between concluding your work in a timely manner and reaching the strongest possible text. As I have said before, I urge you not to allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good or even the excellent. You can provide hope. You can demonstrate that multi-lateralism is still alive and well as you did at the World health Assembly earlier this year by adopting important amendments to the IHR. And I, as I have also said before, no-one will get everything they want. Everyone must give something or no-one will get anything. I urge you to be guided by public health and I urge you to maintain your focus on consensus. And I urge you to see the Pandemic Agreement not as a collection of separate articles but as a single cohesive whole with three balancing pillars. First, a Pandemic Agreement without prevention is not an agreement at all. Our first priority must be to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent epidemics in the first place… Second, a Pandemic Agreement without preparedness is not an agreement. The world cannot again be caught unprepared as it was for the Covid-19 pandemic. Preparedness must be a cornerstone state. And third, a Pandemic Agreement without robust, equitable and resilient response is not an agreement. The systems and capacities must be in place to respond quickly when the next pandemic strikes and strike it will. Time’s not on our side. Covid is still circulating, Mpox is a global health emergency. We have an outbreak of Marburg and a H5N1 spillover. The next pandemic will not wait.
The decision you took nearly three years ago was aptly titled ‘The World Together’. It captured your resolve then and it must be your motto now. I urge you to come together now to see beyond purely national interest to the global interest because the world can only be safe if every individual nation is safer. I also urge you to remember that equity and security are two sides of the same coin. We cannot have one without the other. I also urge you to complete the agreement before the end of this year if possible. And I believe it’s possible. I have gone through the pending issues one by one. I see common ground. Finally, I want to underscore that this is your process. We continue to see lies spreading on social media that this agreement will cede national sovereignty to the WHO. You know and I know that there is not an ounce of truth in this. We ask all member states to make that clear to your people. As always, I and my colleagues in the Secretariat are ready to support you to realise your mission and mandate – a world together. Thank you and I wish you every success.”
Member States
The co-chairs then opened the floor to the member states for comment.
EU:
“If agreement can be reached on the issues during the first week, the INB could consider calling a special session to adopt the Pandemic Agreement in December. But to proceed with calling a special session we all need to be fully convinced that the agreement will be ready for adoption. This is too important an objective to make any leap of faith that is not grounded in tangible progress in the negotiations. We also want to underline that what will ultimately ensure the success of the Pandemic Agreement is its content…the content will be far more important than the timing of its adoption.”
USA:
“Careful consideration should also be given to the legal form of the Pandemic Agreement. The United States supports adopting the agreement as a WHO Article 21 regulation which offers important advantages including broader member state participation, more timely entry into force and better coherence with the IHR. We recognise that doing so will require changes to the existing text and we are ready to engage in these discussions.”
UK:
“As the UK re-affirmed at the G20 Health Ministers meeting in Rio last week, we continue to be firmly committed to these negotiations and finalising the Pandemic Accord as soon as it is feasible to have meaningful agreement.”
“The UK is ready to work hard and constructively with the Bureau, the Secretariat, member states and stakeholders to find ways forward in pursuit of making the world safer for all our citizens.”
Relevant Stakeholders
After member states the floor was opened to the relevant stakeholders (there are around four hundred “relevant stakeholders” many of whom have conflicts of interest – they stand to gain from the pandemic industrial complex that will built out as a consequence of the Pandemic Agreement).
GAVI:
“Gavi, the vaccine alliance, remains committed to supporting this process and encourages all stakeholders to continue their efforts for a timely and decisive conclusion of the Pandemic Agreement. We’d like to make three points. Firstly, Gavi commends the integration of routine immunisations as a core element of pandemic prevention in the current draft…strong routine immunisation services are foundational to safeguarding the world against future outbreaks. Secondly, we strongly support a multilateral robust pathogen access benefit sharing system coordinated by the WHO with clear roles for specialised agencies. Such a system is crucial for fostering global collaboration, facilitating the rapid sharing of pathogen data and entering the fair and equitable distribution of medical counter measures. To meet our collective commitment to equity and solidarity, this benefit sharing mechanism should provide for a contribution at least 20% of the production of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics during a pandemic in the event of a public health emergency of international concern. Third and finally, Gavi supports the establishment of a single coordinating financing mechanism for the IHR and the future Pandemic Agreement.”
Third World Network:
“…however, even after the completion of the 11th round, we do not see provisions in the negotiating text which provides legal certainty to unhindered, timely and equitable access to medical counter measures. Each time the Bureau streamlines the text the scope of access is getting squeezed.”
“Lastly, we think the negotiating process should focus on content rather than aiming for an early conclusion of negotiations by December. To achieve this, effective text based negotiations amongst member states are crucial, We also urge member states not to rush with the December timeline in mind and get themselves stuck in a shortened text without critical equity elements. It would be a repetition of what we did in April and May 2024. It takes a severe toll on equity.”
Conclusion
Even after almost three years of negotiating the difference between the positions of the “global north” and the “global south” remain with equity at the heart of those differences. Pathogen and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) remains highly contentious and there is a concern that in order to adopt the Pandemic Agreement by December, PABS and other contentious issues will be discussed at a later date via the Conference of the Parties. This is unacceptable to many member states and negates the motto, to date, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.
There isn’t even consensus amongst Member States as to the WHO Constitution article under which to adopt the Pandemic Agreement (Article 19 or Article 21).
Summary
From the opening session, it would seem that the differences that existed at the outset three years ago remain today – the member states are far from reaching consensus. However, we, the people, do not get to hear what goes on in the substantive drafting sessions. We do know that there is a revised text of the Pandemic Agreement but it is not publicly available.
On Friday 8th November a “stock taking” of progress made took place to determine whether it is feasible to call a special session of the Health Assembly. Anne-Claire clarified that consensus does not have to be reached in order for a special session to be called rather member states must be very confident that consensus can be reached by the date of the special session.
The Pandemic Agreement is predicated on the falsehood that vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics are the key to preventing pandemics. This is not about health; a cursory read of the Pandemic Agreement illustrates this. Rather it is about perpetuating the wealth transfer that we all witnessed during the last “pandemic”.
Next Steps
On Monday November 11, 2024, there will be a meeting to consider whether or not it is appropriate to call for a special session of the World Health Assembly with a view to adopting the proposed Pandemic Agreement prior to the end of 2024.
Resources
Article 19 WHO Constitution
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Article 21 WHO Constitution
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.
Article 22 WHO Constitution
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health
Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.
