TWN Info Service on Health Issues (May24/06)
6 May 2024
Third World Network

WHO: Despite scepticism pandemic instrument negotiations to continue till 10 May

Geneva, 5 May (TWN) – Despite scepticism Member States agreed to continue negotiations on the pandemic instrument till 10 May.

This was suggested by the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) which has proposed an ambitious plan to conclude the negotiations by 10 May.

While presenting the schedule Co-Chair Mr Roland Driece said that even if it is required to sit till early morning of 11 May Member States need to finish the negotiations. The Working Group will meet in two parallel sessions in the morning (9.00 am – 12.30 pm) and evening (6.00 – 9.30 pm) except on 9 May which will only have a morning session.

The Drafting Group is to meet during in the afternoon (2.00 – 5.30 pm). The INB is scheduled to adopt the pandemic instrument in the afternoon of 10 May.

The Bureau provided the timetable for negotiations with a specific set of articles in the Working Group (WG) and Drafting Group (DG) format as follows:

6 May: WG 1 (Articles 4 and 5) and WG 2 (Articles 11, 13 and 13bis); DG (Articles 6, 12, 14, 17 and 18); WG 1 (Article 7) and WG 2 (Articles 13 and 13 bis)

7 May:  WG1 (Article 20) and WG2 (Articles in chapter 3); DG (Articles 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11); WG 1 (Article 20)

8 May: WG 1 (no Article is mentioned) and WG 2 (No Article is mentioned); DG (Articles 2, 3, 13, 13bis, 19 and 20); WG 1 (No article is mentioned) and WG 2 (No article is mentioned)

9 May: WG 1 (No article is mentioned) and WG 2 (No article is mentioned); DG (Articles 1 and Chapter 3) and DG (No article is mentioned)

10 May: INB meeting approval of the draft agreement and approval of the report.

However, as per the suggestion of Member States such as Bangladesh, Nigeria, Tanzania, Namibia and Indonesia the Drafting Group will start the negotiation on Article 12 instead of the Working Group meetings to negotiate Articles, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 13bis.

The WHO Director-General urged Member States not to block the consensus even if they cannot join the consensus.

Scepticism of Member States

Though there is consensus to engage in the negotiations Member States have mixed feelings on the expected outcome.  Only a few developing countries took the floor and generally supported the process and stayed from making any sceptical remarks on the proposed negotiating schedule. However, many developed countries stated that the text has not achieved sufficient progress to be adopted.

The European Union (EU) said that negotiations have made good progress but there has not been sufficient progress made to be near conclusion and stated that it would not be able to agree on a legally binding text “if we do not conclude all elements by next Friday”. The EU also stated that it would not be in a position to accept a take-it-or-leave-it text or anything that would be agreed on by some kind of silence procedure.

Japan supported the EU and said the INB made progress, but it was not sufficient. It said it has come ready to participate in the consensus of adoption. In an indirect response to the WHO DG Japan said that it does not want to be asked not to block consensus but to participate in the consensus.

Kenya stated that Member States have made progress though much needs to be done and stressed the need to look at cooperation based on mutually beneficial strategies.

Brunei conveyed its strong preference for an instrument that can be presented to WHA77 in May but said that it is not that optimistic. According to Brunei Member States had proposed that an agreed text should be done in the first week of the resumed 9^th session of the INB and then the second week would be to do legal scrubbing.

“But we are not yet ready to agree on the text, with many divergences still on key articles including on PABS (pathogen access and benefit sharing) and there is no convergence. Therefore, It would be dangerous not to consider possibilities to course correct.” Stressed Brunei.

The United Kingdom stated that it was struck by the commitment to an agreement by May and a positive spirit. Further, it said that despite a positive attitude and desire for success, it was concerned that not sufficient progress has been made. The UK demanded clarity of modalities for next week and also said It would be difficult for delegations to agree on legally binding text after this INB.

New Zealand supported the interventions of the EU, Japan and Brunei and shared the scepticism that though there is progress but “we have not yet reached where we need to be”.

According to New Zealand while there is a need to ensure a successful outcome there is also a need to have Plan B to secure and capture progress if we are not able to finish next week. It called for a Working Group on cross-cutting issues – including on the relationship between the legal instruments on the PABS system and One Health.  It expressed concern about the Bureau’s proposal to create separate legal instruments for One Health and PABS because it creates a significant risk of regime fragmentation.

Malaysia highlighted the need to discuss the relationship with future proposed instruments on PABS and One Health.  While expressing concern on the limited time to conclude the negotiations by May 2024, according to Malaysia even if Member States manage to get an agreement, countries may wait to ratify the instrument to see the outcome of the negotiations process on the PABS System and One Health.

It also called for discussion on the governance structure of the pandemic instrument and the proposed new World Health Assembly Committee E.

Malaysia further sought clarifications on whether Member States agree to use the WHO regular budget to finance the pandemic instrument Secretariat in the absence of provisions for assessed contributions in the instrument.

The United States said that it is encouraging to see that everybody has come and reiterated their commitment to these negotiations and to working together. “We saw this past week that this commitment is more than just words – we do feel that there is the cooperative spirit to get this done, exercise flexibility, and compromise,” it said.

However, the US expressed the worry that moving away from a consensus outcome would have serious ramifications for WHO, multilateralism and the people.

A developing country delegate told TWN that the scepticism of the EU and other developed countries could be a negotiating tactic to pressurise developing countries to give up their equity demands, especially on equitable access, PABS and finance.