TWN Info Service on Health Issues (Mar24/12)
26 March 2024
Third World Network

WHO: Developed Countries say they don't know the meaning of Solidarity in INB9

26 March, Geneva (TWN) – Developed countries oppose “solidarity” as a principle for the implementation of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response during the first week of negotiations at the ongoing 9^th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB9).

The meaning of this word and its legal use were contested by developed countries, during the second day of the meeting (19 March), making WHO legal counsel to refer to dictionaries and explain the meaning to the developed countries.

The opposition was in response to the INB Bureau’s text on Paragraph 5 of Article 3, one of the three articles discussed on the second day of the INB9. Some of the developed countries have earlier opposed the concept of “international solidarity” in the preambular paragraph as well.

Article 3(5) states: “To achieve the objective of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and to implement its provisions, the Parties will be guided, inter alia, by the following: … solidarity, transparency and accountability to achieve the common interest of a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics; …”

INB9 is taking place at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva from 18 to 28 March in a hybrid mode.

The negotiators have till date discussed up until Article 20 of the proposed instrument, which includes several key issues including (i) research and development (Article 9), (ii) technology transfer (Article 11), (iii) diversified production of the medicines, vaccines and diagnostics (Article 10), (iv) access to pathogens, genetic sequence information and benefit sharing (Article 12), (v) supply and equitable allocation of the pandemic related products (Article 13), (vi) international cooperation (Article 16), (vii) implementation support (Article 19), (viii) financing (Article 20), (ix) pandemic prevention and surveillance (Article 4) and (x) one health approach (Article 5). Article 3 refers to the principles to be followed by implementing the Agreement.

The developed countries called “international solidarity” a contested concept, taking the discussions to a stage where the WHO legal counsel had to refer to dictionaries and WHO resolutions to explain the meaning of the principle of international solidarity, according to a developing country delegate.

“Equally they didn't show any signs of solidarity with developing countries in negotiations for the pandemic instrument (in INB9),” the same delegate told Third World Network (TWN).

The developed countries such as the United States, Norway, Australia, the United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union initially opposed the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and respective capabilities mentioned under Paragraph 4 of Article 3. Australia clung on to the argument that CBDR belongs to the environmental law context and cannot be adapted or adopted in international health law.

Japan said it will never accept the principle of CBDR in international health law. Japan stated that along with other developed countries it is very serious about addressing the concerns relating to the different capacities of different countries to prevent, and prepare for, pandemics.

However, countries such as the U.S. and New Zealand went further to delete “solidarity” which is mentioned in Paragraph 5. Around 70 developing countries then raised their flags to retain the concept and not a single developed country supported them.

A developing country delegate questioned, “How are we supposed to believe [developed countries] when they say they are serious about addressing the issues associated with the development divide, but don't want to reference international solidarity, forget CBDR''.

It is understood that at the end of that round of discussion the WHO legal counsel took the floor and explained the meaning of the word “solidarity” to the developed countries. The counsel cited the World Health Assembly decision that mandated the development of a pandemic instrument, stating that the decision makes solidarity a guiding principle in the conduct of negotiations at the INB.

The negotiations on Article 4 (pandemic prevention and surveillance) also reflected the developed countries’ unwillingness to cooperate with developing countries. The language in Paragraph 2(a) of Article 4 which requires Parties to enhance financial and technical support to developing countries was diluted by the very same developed countries.

Interestingly the E.U. wanted to obligate countries to take measures addressing environmental factors such as climate change and loss of biodiversity, without any mention of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity.

This means they want developing countries to now take actions on climate and biodiversity issues without referring to the well-grounded principles of those agreements such as CBDR and sovereignty over biological resources. The U.S. also reportedly opposed the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources.

One of the newly inserted paragraphs from the E.U. reads:

“Wildlife management, (i) taking action to prevent the development and spread of zoonotic disease arising from trade and consumption of wild animals, or products thereof, posing a high risk of zoonotic disease and (ii) facilitating timely and safe sharing of biological samples of domestic and wild animals for zoonotic disease research. In taking such actions, the Parties shall involve indigenous peoples and local communities and taking into account the rights, as set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, needs and traditional practices of indigenous peoples under their jurisdiction”.

The first set of measures in sub-paragraph (i) can have an impact on trade, businesses and communities’ livelihoods. There is no clarity whether the international community would indemnify or compensate for losses that may be suffered.  Similarly, the E.U.’s proposal for sharing biological samples of wild animals is not accompanied with the words “benefit sharing” even for appearance’s sake.

A delegate told TWN that when Bangladesh proposed that the measures relating to pandemic prevention should not unnecessarily affect the lives and livelihood of people, the chair from the Netherlands questioned the meaning of such a proposal in the context of pandemic prevention. It is clear from the E.U.'s proposal there will be several measures that affect people’s lives and livelihoods, so why not simply acknowledge it and try to achieve a balance.

On Article 5 relating to the one health approach, several developed countries proposed to delete the provision and merge the contents into other relevant articles such as Articles 4, 6 or 7. However, most of these countries remained flexible and said if other countries want to see a specific article on the one health approach, they are willing to cooperate in the spirit of solidarity. Some countries expressed the concern that the one health approach could divert resources from other national public health priorities.

Further, it is learnt that the U.S. and the E.U. continue to oppose all ideas proposed by the developing countries, which strengthen international cooperation with regard to delivery of equity in pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. They are not willing to undertake any obligation to transfer or license technologies to developing countries for the diversification of the production of diagnostics, medicines and vaccines. They have also opposed the creation of a financial mechanism accountable to the Parties of the instrument for building capacities required for the implementation of the agreement. They are even attempting to delete language that ensures recipients of the pathogens and genetic sequence data are under an obligation to share benefits fairly and equitably.

Thus, developed countries clearly lack the spirit of global solidarity.

Protracted discussions on the process

The discussions during the first week stumbled upon the inefficiencies of the process managed by the INB Bureau and Secretariat. During the second day of the negotiations (19 March), it is understood that developed countries were quite unhappy with the text proposals in Article 4 made by the INB Bureau, and countries like the U.K. and the E.U. proposed extensive text suggestions. This led to certain discussions regarding the process on the second day of the negotiations. However, there is no clear decision regarding process yet.  

Several developing countries opposed extensive text suggestions and remarked particularly that if the E.U. is trying to bring back all their proposals which did not actually make it into the current text, it will not help to conclude the negotiations by May 2024. However, this further led to a discussion about what INB should do when there are extensive text proposals.

Certain countries want to then take the discussion into small informal groups while other countries want to empower the Bureau to simply take into account the proposals and revise the existing draft.

It is not clear what will happen to the text proposals made by Member States, when the Bureau or the small group proposes a revised text – whether the text proposals from Member states will be retained in the draft so that the proponent States can have a final say as to whether their proposal has been adequately taken into account, or as to whether they need to withdraw or modify their respective proposals.  A leaked text from journalistic sources show the Bureau has made revised text proposals to the Preamble, Articles 2 and 3.  These proposals have been placed in the negotiating text beneath the proposals made by the Member States.

At the time of writing, there is still no clarity  regarding the process forward. However various countries and delegations have started to self-organize various informal meetings in search of compromises and solutions. Developing country delegations with limited number of members are finding it difficult to keep track of the various informal discussions that are going on.