TWN Info Service on Health Issues (Nov23/11)
24 November 2023
Third World Network

WHO: INB Bureau refuses to incorporate Member States proposals in negotiating text

Geneva, 23 November (TWN) – The Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) for the preparation of the pandemic instrument has refused to incorporate the textual suggestions from Member States as part of the negotiating text, and asserts that the alterations would be done only if there is support across the board.

A communication from the Co-Chairs on behalf of the Bureau states: “In the view of the Bureau, all of these suggestions are valuable and part of our negotiation process. But it needs to be clear that the fact that these inputs have been submitted, does not yet make them part of the NT (negotiating text).  The NT is our default text and only if across the board there is support for alterations, these will be incorporated”.

This assertion by the Bureau makes the proposals made by Member States during the 7^th Session of INB (6-10 November) ineffective. Since the 2^nd day of INB 7 various Member States made textual submissions during the drafting sessions. Many Member States have also submitted written textual proposals to the Bureau after 10 November.  

It was learnt that at least 23 regional groups/Member States made written submissions to the Bureau on multiple articles. These submissions are from the Africa Group, Argentina, Egypt, Barbados, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, European Union, Group for Equity, Iran, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, Philippines, Russia, Tunisia, UAE, UK and USA.

The Group for Equity is composed of the following 29 countries that are actively engaged in the pandemic instrument negotiations: Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Namibia, Pakistan, Palestine, Paraguay, Peru, The Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand and Uruguay.

The Bureau’s communication also states: “There is a huge task for the vice chairs and cofacilitators during the subgroup meetings, to bring the Member States together and to come up with concrete legal text proposals with substantial cross-regional support of the INB, in order to improve the NT.”

Thus, it is very clear that the Bureau unilaterally rejects the textual proposals from Member States and forces them to enter into a negotiation even before the launching of the formal negotiation and pressurising countries to dilute their proposals before the start of negotiation. Further, one delegate who attended the INB7 meeting pointed out that the Bureau’s stance to term the draft negotiating text as negotiating text is not true because there was no decision to designate the draft negating text as the negotiating text.

According to some delegates many Member States clearly conveyed on the first day of the INB7 meeting their non-acceptance of the draft negotiating text as a negotiating text and insisted to propose amendments to the draft negotiating text. As a result, the Drafting Group meetings from the second day of INB7 dedicated itself to incorporating textual proposals from Member States.

Another delegate who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that the communication of the Bureau is unilateral and goes against the understanding during the INB meeting. The same delegate described the Bureau’s condition as unfair and goes against the efforts of developing countries to incorporate provisions on equity. According to the delegate the draft negotiating text is biased towards the developed countries’ interest by proposing hard obligations on the surveillance agenda and proposing largely best endeavour language on equity-related provisions including technology transfer, diversification of production, finance etc.  The Bureau effectively serves the interest of developed countries in a pre-emptive manner by not allowing developing countries’ proposals to change the language on equity-related provisions.

The proposal from the INB Bureau regarding subgroups of the INB Drafting Group gave an impression that the textual proposals suggested during the INB7 session are considered as part of the negotiating text. The power point presentation of the Bureau on the last day of INB7  proposed subgroups with the following modalities:

·         Subgroups will be chaired by one of the four INB Bureau Vice-Chairs;

·         Vice-Chairs may be supported by co-facilitators, as decided by the drafting group;

·         Subgroups will be open to all INB Drafting Group members, and will be held virtually and, where possible, in a hybrid format;

·         Subgroups will begin meeting during INB7, and will work intersessionally and will not overlap;

·         Each subgroup will focus on its specific Article(s), using the negotiating text as a basis, and reflecting input from the drafting group;

·         Articles of the negotiating text which are not assigned to a subgroup will be addressed in the drafting group;

·         Subgroups will work on the continued basis that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”;

·         Subgroups will present proposed text of their specific Article(s) to the drafting group/INB;

·         Subgroup chairs will report to the drafting group/INB periodically on the advancement of their work;

·         Subgroups will be supported by the INB Secretariat, with relevant experts provided by WHO as necessary.

Four subgroups were formed to discuss the following articles: Article 4, 5 and 6; Articles 10, 11 and 13;  Article 12) and Articles 19 and 20. 

The meetings of subgroups will take place on 22 November to 5 December with 3 meeting of the subgroups on Articles 19 and 20, Articles 4, 5 and 6, Article 12 and two meetings of the subgroup on Articles 10, 11 and 13.

Another controversial proposal from the Bureau is the positive signal to the proposal to allow the participation of experts in INB meetings/sessions. The Bureau’s communication states: “Some of you have been requesting for the incorporation of technical experts on certain issues. The Bureau sees merit in technical expertise, but sees the WHO-secretariat as the main driver for this. When it is clear that extra expertise from outside the secretariat is needed and the INB agrees on this, the Bureau will organize technical briefings with the help of these outside experts”.

 

Developing countries questioned the motive behind involving experts in the Member State-led negotiations. According to one delegate, “States, if they need advice, are always free to consult with people whom they think of as experts or organise consultative meetings with such experts. Other delegations who may find value in such consultative meetings may attend or perhaps they may not. But we cannot take any experts’ view as the final point on the issue. We are making a political and legal agreement, technical experts' views are only inputs. There is no need to involve them directly in a drafting group which will tilt the text on the basis of what so-called experts say” .

Another developing country delegate described the proposal for the participation of experts as “a classic tactic to keep our proposals in waiting before they get a green signal - developed countries apply this across forums whenever they are on the back foot”.