|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (Jan23/08) 31 January 2023 (TWN) – The WHO Executive Board (EB) Members express their reservations over the Director-General’s proposals for a global health architecture for health emergency preparedness, response and resilience. Many EB Members reiterated that the DG’s proposals must be deliberated by all WHO Member States at appropriate forums such as the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) or Working Group on Amendments to International Health Regulations 2005 (WGIHR). The DG’s report on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies (EB152/12) was discussed on the first day of the 152nd Session of the EB under agenda item 12.1 on “Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies”. The report contains 10 proposals from the DG to build a global health architecture. The EB meeting is taking place at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva from 30th January to 7th February. There are concerns relating to these proposals. The EB is requested to guide the WHO Secretariat on the following two questions: (1)
How can the Secretariat best work with Member States to advance the
10 proposals contained in the report? As a response, several EB members reminded the Secretariat on the role of Member States in shaping the global health emergency architecture. They also stated that currently the Member States are taking part in such discussions at the WGIHR and at the INB for the new pandemic instrument. Apart from the process issues EB Members also expressed concerns on the substantive elements of the 10 proposals. Denmark, who spoke on behalf of the European Union (EU), stated that Member States will ultimately decide whether and how to take any of these individual topics forward in collaboration with concerned government sectors. The EU called for in-depth discussion on selected topics before further steps are taken. Denmark also reminded the DG that the global health architecture should not only focus on health security. It also needs to support Member States in advancing, as appropriate, the strengthening of National Health Systems including the essential public health functions. The U.K. stated that the devil will be in the details while commending on the DG’s report for covering a lot of ground. It also stated that One Health Approach is missing in the DG’s proposals. China said that the 10 proposals are related to the discussions at the INB and WGIHR and require cooperation of “other Member States” to improve global health security. Further China called for the use of WGIHR and INB to further examine the detailed content of the 10 proposals, adding that the work must not be rushed. Brazil highlighted that though the DG’s proposals provide food for thought, the interests of developing countries are not properly addressed as well as issues relating to delivery of equity. It concluded its statement by saying: “…the substance of the proposals is an integral part of the ongoing discussion at the INB and the WGIHR, with the difference that these processes have been developing in a much more transparent and inclusive way, with clear participation by non-state actors and guidance offered by Member States. Both of these workstreams are entering into critical phases this year. Now it is the time to concentrate our efforts to have meaningful debates within those two mechanisms in order to come up with innovative and game changing norms. For this reason, we believe that the proposals should be referred to the relevant governing and negotiating bodies, including the WGIHR and the INB, where they can be thoroughly discussed and further developed if agreed upon by Member States, and not be the subject of specific consultations.” Stating that the INB and WGIHR are working to strengthen the global architecture and the two processes are complementary, Paraguay reminded that “multiplying spaces for the debate will not help substantive discussions.” It went on to say that “therefore we think that exchanges on global architecture need to be focussed on these two processes and these two forums, which have proven how they stick to the value of transparency and inclusiveness.” The United States stated that they maintain the position that “it should be really up to the Member States to determine what elements go forward and what elements are held back.” They added that the ongoing negotiations may be used as a vehicle or a platform for discussions in this regard. Maldives reminded the meeting that “while we (Member States) work together to apply various global mechanisms in preventing, detecting and responding to emergencies, we must be worried of the risks of overlapping, fragmenting or duplicating responsibilities, efforts and the conflicts of interests.” Japan also reminded EB Members that the discussions should not be duplicated. Russia, calling out the proposal to create more committees as “premature”, reiterated its stance against the DG’s proposals that endanger or might cause fragmentation of the global health architecture, that might duplicate current processes and overburden the participants of these forums, especially small delegations. The discussions on this agenda item 12.1 are expected to resume at the current session and the non-EB Member States are expected to make their comments on the DG’s proposals in the coming days.+
|
||
