TWN Info Service on Health Issues (Jan22/10)
24 January 2022
Third World Network

WHO: EB Members decide to establish Standing Committee on Health Emergency amidst concerns

Geneva, 24 January (TWN): WHO Member States have reportedly arrived at a consensus to establish a Standing Committee on Health Emergency (Pandemic) Prevention, Preparedness and Response (SCPPR) of the Executive Board of the Organization.

A draft decision in this regard was circulated on 21January 2022 ahead of the 150th Session of the WHO Executive Board (EB) that is taking place on 24-29 January 2022 in hybrid mode.

However, Member States could not reach a consensus on the terms of reference (ToR) of the SCPPR. Therefore, the draft decision requests the WHO Director-General to facilitate informal consultations with Member States, with a view to submit the revised ToR to the 151st meeting of the EB.

In accordance with Rule 18 of the Rules of Procedure of the EB, the SCPPR will be a standing committee of limited membership. However, the first meeting of the committee will only happen after EB151 adopts the revised ToR. Paragraph 2 of the draft decision requests the Director-General:

“(a) to facilitate further informal consultations in an inclusive, transparent manner among Member States to finalize the draft terms of reference of the Standing Committee on Health Emergency (Pandemic) Prevention, Preparedness and Response, taking into account the deliberations at the 150th Executive Board, with a view to submit the terms of reference for consideration by the 151st Executive Board in May 2022; and

(b) to report on of the functions and impact of the Standing Committee and present the results and possible recommendations based thereon for the consideration of the Executive Board at its 156th meeting in January 2025.”

This means that the SCPPR’s scope and functions are yet to be decided by the EB. The Director-General is tasked to facilitate informal consultations amongst Member States to finalise the draft ToR. The finalised draft then needs to be adopted by the EB by virtue of paragraph 1(a) of the decision.

The ToR as proposed by Austria have several issues. Third World Network has previously published on these. Austria has sought to establish a non-inclusive process and an exclusive club in the name of a “standing committee” of the EB. The proposed process of the SCPPR would have interfered with the International Health Regulations process and the authority of the Director-General, and ultimately it would have compromised the significance of the scientific advice in the Director-General’s response to a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Several of these issues have stalled the process of convening the first meeting of the SCPPR up until EB151.

Nevertheless, the language of the draft decision raises serious concerns. Firstly, although paragraph 1(a) envisages that EB151 will look into the adoption of the revised ToR, the paragraph 2(a) language can reduce the role of the EB151 to a namesake authority. Secondly it contributes to the further fragmentation of ongoing negotiations on Health Emergency Preparedness and Response and the required legal and policy changes.

Under paragraph 1 of the draft decision, the EB has to adopt the ToR. However, paragraph 2 (a) entrusts the Director-General to facilitate the informal meetings of the Member States with a view to submit the ToR for consideration by the EB151. It is not clear whether the Secretariat or the Member States will prepare the ToR. The term “consideration” may not necessarily mean that there will be a substantive discussion during EB151. The EB may simply take note of the report submitted by the Director-General or Secretariat which shall then be considered as approval by EB.

There is at least one such precedent in the WHO when the language was twisted to get things approved by the World Health Assembly (WHA) and EB. In the case of the development and adoption of “criteria and principles for secondments from nongovernmental organisations, philanthropic foundations and academic institutions”, resolution WHA 69.10 had requested the Director-General “to develop, in consultation with Member States, a set of criteria and principles for secondments from nongovernmental organisations, philanthropic foundations and academic institutions and to submit the criteria and principles for the consideration of and establishment by, as appropriate, the Seventieth World Health Assembly, through the Executive Board, taking into account …”

The criteria and principles were later incorporated in WHO’s human resources policies and procedures after WHA 70, but without any formal adoption. The EB and WHA simply took note of reports submitted by the Director-General and the Secretariat and it was considered as approval by the WHA. In connection with this, during the WHA70 session, the WHO legal counsel explained the practice as follows:

“…that resolution WHA69.10 requested the Director-General to develop a set of criteria and principles for secondments and to submit those criteria and principles for the consideration of and establishment by, as appropriate, the Seventieth World Health Assembly. The inclusion of the words “as appropriate”, allowed the Health Assembly either to take note of the principles and criteria or to take other actions. The Executive Board had decided only to take note of the principles and criteria. If the Health Assembly took note of the report, the criteria and principles would be incorporated in WHO’s human resources policies and procedures; a number of other WHO policies had been established in that manner. As no other course of action had been proposed by the Executive Board, it would be appropriate for the Health Assembly merely to take note of the report.”

Following this explanation, though countries such as Brazil and Somalia asked for further clarifications from the WHO Secretariat, the reports submitted were nonetheless “noted” by the WHA70 without waiting for the Secretariat’s substantive response. It must be pointed out that the legal counsel has patently erred in saying the EB can decide what is appropriate for the WHA.

Further, the draft SCPPR decision requests the Director-General to conduct informal consultations on the issue. There is no reference to the ongoing process on the issues of health emergency (pandemic) preparedness and response, namely (1) the Member States Working Group on Strengthening WHO preparedness and response to health emergencies; and (2) the intergovernmental negotiating body on a proposed pandemic instrument. The process of finalising the ToR of the SCPPR will take place separately from these other processes. This would further fragment the negotiations which are already fragmented and could create issues of (in)coherence among the outcomes of the various processes.