|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (Oct21/08) Geneva 8 October, (TWN) – Despite the lack of consensus, the Bureau of the WHO Member State Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies (WGPR) proposed a work plan with a two-track approach of amending the international Health Regulation (IHR) and having a pandemic treaty. The two-track approach is to keep the proposal of a pandemic treaty alive, which failed to gain consensus even after the third meeting of WGPR that took place in Geneva on 4-6 October. The open sessions were concluded by 5 October and the Bureau circulated a draft “way forward” work plan text. However, on 6 October the Bureau amended the text and provided time till the evening of 7 October for member States to provide comments. According to the work plan the Bureau will develop a zero draft of the report to be submitted to the Special Session of World Health Assembly (WHASS) scheduled for 29 November to 1 December 2021. Further, it proposes to organize intersessional meetings before the 4th WGPR meeting to be held on 1-4 November. These intersessional meetings are to focus on the topics as scheduled:
Apart from the above intersessional meetings, the work plan anticipates such further meetings after the 4th WGPR meeting (1 – 3 November) prior to the WHASS. However, the work plan does not indicate that there would be a 5th WGPR meeting. The work plan also proposes that “following WHASS, the negotiations take areas by topic (for example, gaps listed in para 3 of A/WGPR/2/4) and cover all aspects of our mandate as we look at each topic including both how to use existing tools to close gaps and make proposal for the potential benefit of a new WHO Convention, Agreement and Instrument”. This clearly indicates the Bureau’s preference to follow a two-track approach even if there is no consensus at the WHASS. This goes against the mandate of the WGPR. Earlier the 74th World Health Assembly (WHA) had adopted a decision WHA 74.16 which mandated the WGPR “to prioritize the assessment of the benefits of developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response and to provide a report to be considered at the special session of the Health Assembly referred to in paragraph 2 of this decision”. Para 2 of the said decision had requested the WHO Director-General “to convene a special session of the World Health Assembly in November 2021, and to include on the agenda of the special session only one item, dedicated to considering the benefits of developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response with a view towards the establishment of an intergovernmental process to draft and negotiate such a convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response, taking into account the report of the Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies referred to in paragraph 1”. Thus, it is clear that the mandate of the WGPR is to prepare a report on the “assessment of the benefits of developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response”. This means that the report of the WGPR is expected to state whether there is a benefit of a new WHO Convention, agreement or other international instrument to enable the WHASS to take the decision on whether to launch a negotiation on the said instrument. The proposal of the Bureau is to keep alive the discussion on the pandemic treaty even after the WHASS, which is otherwise impossible to continue due to the lack of consensus among Member States. Member States are also asked to provide guidance to the zero draft report to WHASS by 25th October. The Bureau while preparing this zero draft will “draw from discussions in the first three meetings of the WGPR, non-papers submitted by Member States or groups of Member States as well as observations of non-state actors and observers” . The report may also contain a draft resolution or decision for the consideration of the WHASS. However, according to diplomatic sources Russia opposed the idea for the WGPR to prepare a draft resolution or decision. Many other Member States including France, Norway, Spain and Indonesia wanted WGPR to develop such drafts to be adopted by WHASS. The proposed method of work and terms of reference of WGPR, paragraph 10 states that the WGPR will conduct its business (including, for the avoidance of any doubt, the activities of subgroups, if any) on the basis of consensus. Some Member States including Brazil questioned the Bureau’s interest in pushing ahead solutions which do not form part of the consensus in the WGPR meeting, if any. China and Russia have strongly raised their concerns and said that the WGPR Bureau should strictly adhere to the mandate provided by Resolution WHA74(16). Brazil was of the opinion that it agrees that the IHR needs improvements, but questioned whether a new treaty is the best way to get the improvements done. There appears to be significant divergence on this question even as the 3rd WGPR meeting concluded. The U.S. has submitted a non-paper to strengthen WHO and revise the IHR, while the Group of Friends of a Pandemic Treaty has submitted a non-paper highlighting the benefits of the treaty. The U.S. proposal is based on objectives and targets set by a virtual Global COVID-19 Summit: Ending the Pandemic and Building Back Better held on 22 September. Three critical areas are identified: Vaccinate the World; Save Lives Now; and Build Back Better and it is argued that the targets set under these areas raise a fundamental question on the principle of equity. However, the paper adopts a business-as-usual approach and seeks to promote market options or solutions rather than legal and governmental obligations to address the issues. The non-paper of the Group of Friends of a Pandemic Treaty sets out the principal benefits of a new legally binding international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response. It maintains (1) elevating attention to the high-level political heads, (2) cross-sectoral coherence and mobilization, (3) global inclusivity, (4) improving coherence in a fragmented global health architecture as principal benefits along with certain other practical and technical benefits. Other benefits include: equitable access to quality medical countermeasures; sharing of data, samples, technology and benefits; One Health approach; and health system capability. However, the paper fails to explain why any of these benefits cannot be achieved through IHR amendments or implementation. From the very beginning in May 2021, the proposals of the Group of Friends of a Pandemic Treaty have not addressed the question of why only a new treaty can accord these benefits. New Zealand, Switzerland and Monaco are also reported to have submitted separate non-papers. New Zealand’s non-paper presented a draft collection of legal principles to be adhered to in pandemic preparedness and response. While it fails to translate their aspirational principles into clear obligatory contents, Switzerland’s non-paper is reported as containing some targeted IHR amendments. Nevertheless, those amendment suggestions are also reportedly absent of any solid obligations on the equitable access to health care, or other countermeasures and capacities to deal with pandemics. Monaco proposed to study the possibility of setting up an Inter-Agency Standing Committee for Equity issues such as setting up emergency stockpiles, private sector engagement for the production and distribution of pharmaceutical products, upstream preparation, exchange of information required for R&D etc on the model of the Codex Alimentarius. Even amongst the countries which accept the new treaty alongside IHR there seems to be a difference of opinion as to the role of the new instrument. For instance, countries like Indonesia, New Zealand, South Africa, Botswana, Algeria, Ghana, Kenya, Zambia and the rest of the Africa Group believes a new instrument should contain issues relating to equity, especially those relating to equitable access to diagnostics, treatments and vaccines, their local production and manufacturing capacity building, and the related technology transfer. Singapore said the new instrument can have provisions for sustainable finance and equitable counter measures. Thailand said that the new instrument should help access to health services and countermeasures. Spain and Costa Rica looked at the benefits of new legal instruments, including equitable access but wants voluntary mechanisms and best endeavour clauses for sharing intellectual property or enhancing production capacity or for other equity measures. However, the rest of the supporters of the treaty who took the floor during WGPR meetings such as Korea, Switzerland, France, Norway, the United Kingdom, Columbia, Monaco and Chile are not seen as stressing on the equity issues during the WGPR meeting. The WHO Secretariat has already highlighted the risk that equity issues have always been dealt with using non-binding mechanisms in the past. It must be kept in mind that, so far, no one has explained why legal obligations of equity cannot be strengthened under the IHR. It is also an intriguing question whether developed countries would still become party to the treaty or the new instrument, which they proposed, if the equity considerations become obligations under new reforms.+
|
||
