|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (Jul24/02) Kochi, 25 July (Nithin Ramakrishnan) – The 10th Meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB10) on a WHO pandemic instrument decided to hold two rounds of negotiations (10 days each) with an aim to conclude the talks on the instrument by this year. INB10 took place on 16-17 July at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva, in hybrid mode, adopted the revised work plan and report of the meeting on 17 July. According to the agreed work plan, INB11 will take place from 9 to 20 September, and INB12 on 4 -15 November 2024. INB11 will have the following agenda according to the adopted work plan:
The above-mentioned Articles deal with these aspects: Article
4: Pandemic Prevention, and Public Health Surveillance Current plans indicate that INB12 will consider the rest of the provisions and, based on the progress of the convergence on the draft text, shall include negotiations on the following issues: “Negotiation and agreement on an updated draft resolution to adopt the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement and work to be undertaken following adoption (including IGWG [Intergovernmental working group] and expert preparatory work for additional instruments) Determination of process for the convening, as appropriate, of a special session of the Health Assembly, provided that agreement is reached on the draft WHO Pandemic Agreement OR Consideration and agreement on an updated work plan and meeting schedule, depending on progress made”. However, there will be a stocktake on the progress of negotiations after iNB11 that might change the future course of action. Further, there will be interactive dialogues and outreach meetings with experts in the first week of September, i.e. before the beginning of INB11 on the following issues: (i) Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) System, (ii) One Health Approach, Surveillance and Pandemic Prevention, and (iii) the complementarity and coherence between the International Health Regulations (IHR) as amended and relevant articles in the proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement as well as (iv) on the legal architecture of the proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement. During the opening session of INB10 the Africa Group and Members of the Group of Equity stressed upon the need for guaranteeing equity in the final outcome, regardless of their willingness to be flexible and finish negotiations as early as possible. Developed country Member States, at the same time, focussed on the divergences and the need for aligning with the pharmaceutical industry, by increasing stakeholder participation in the INB negotiations. The Africa Group also showed interest in finishing PABS negotiations within the pandemic instrument in detail, without parking the operational details into a future instrument. Eswatini, who spoke on behalf of the Africa Group and Egypt, called upon all Member States “to show flexibility in detailing out the PABS within the Pandemic treaty without calling for an additional instrument”. Interestingly the U.S. also showed a clear interest in this approach. It stated: “We agreed two months ago to extend the INB through WHA78 to allow sufficient time for negotiations, including informal work and stakeholder consultations. It’s more important to get it right than to do it fast…. We are fully committed to trying, but we do not advise pushing critical issues in their entirety off to a future process in order to meet a December target. We need to find the right balance of what to include in the Pandemic Agreement, and which details should be deferred to future working groups. The current INB11 proposal assumes we can reach a consensus on at least one day, which may be overly ambitious for the greatest likelihood of success. We suggest we begin by focusing on core issues where additional understanding and alignment is needed regarding fundamental concepts, specifically articles 12, articles 4 and 5, and the legal framework for proposed protocols and annexes.” [Recent negotiations of the INB, in particular during the immediate sessions prior to WHA77, attempted to push contentious but critical issues on PABS and One Health Approach into future instruments. However, the proposals for these instruments themselves have become contentious and challenging because developing countries have clearly opposed the call for additional instrument on One Health, while certain other delegations have linked the development of a PABS instrument with the co-development of a One Health instrument. The additional instrument on PABS was also not a developing country proposal, but a proposal forced upon them just ahead of the WHA77, by showing the need to adopt the pandemic instrument during WHA77. Third World Network has previously reported on how these proposals cause fragmentation in the architecture of the international health emergency regime and creates gaps in the delivery of equity.] In this regard, according to INB10 Meeting report, the WHO Secretariat is mandated to produce information documents on the issue of complementarity with IHR 2005 and the legal architecture of the pandemic instrument. The Secretariat is also required to include options and proposals for the consideration of the Member States, at the request of Norway and Australia and not to just be descriptive. Norway and Australia suggested that the Secretariat should develop these options and proposals such that greater coherence and complementarity can be achieved in the international health emergency laws. The co-chair also indicated the possibility that sometimes these proposals and options can be substantive in nature and need not be simple language changes. The Group of Equity stated that equity must remain at the core of this instrument and that they cannot afford to let the principle of equity be diluted as we finalize the treaty. In that regard, despite being willing to be flexible and to engage constructively for early conclusion of the negotiations, the Group stated it is important to prepare and plan for negotiations beyond the proposed 2 meetings of the INB. Participation of Stakeholders and Experts The U.S. and other developed countries also repeatedly called to include experts in the INB negotiations, and with particular reference to Article 12. This is reflective of a trend in access and benefit sharing negotiations, where developed countries lobby to bring certain selected bioinformatics experts and scientists, who are inclined not to commit to benefit sharing obligations to come to the negotiating table, and who criticise the good governance proposals from the developing countries. Third World Network has previously reported on an incident in the INB negotiations, where handpicked stakeholders were invited “as experts” to a sub-group meeting of Member States on Article 12. India, China, Ethiopia and many other delegations expressed their concerns in inviting such experts, given the conflicts of interest the experts might have when it comes to benefit sharing under PABS. Further reservations as to the stakeholder participation in drafting group was were expressed by a few developing countries, who were concerned about power asymmetries between stakeholders and conflicts of interest. As a result of deliberations on this issue, the involvement of so-called independent experts has been now limited to interactive dialogue meetings. All relevant stakeholders will be invited to observe these interactive sessions. The stakeholders will also be given daily briefings during the drafting group negotiations. Unlike the INB meetings before WHA77, these briefings will be held at the beginning of each negotiating day, instead of evening. In inviting stakeholders and experts to the interactive dialogues and consultative meetings, the U.S. wanted WHO Secretariat and INB Bureau to go beyond the WHO’s Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA), and this was supported by the Colombian delegation. [FENSA is an overarching framework that WHO applies at all levels of the organization for engaging with non-State actors, to identify the risks, such as conflicts of interest, and undue influence, and to protect and preserve WHO’s integrity, reputation and public health mandate. It has specific policies for engaging with nongovernmental organizations, private sector entities, philanthropic foundations and academic institutions respectively.] Colombia also proposed to take the support of experts throughout the process. The U.S. further called for forming an informal sub-committee or sub-group to undertake some drafting work and to bring the work back to the formal drafting group negotiations. However, Nigeria insisted on the need to apply FENSA and stated that FENSA has been adopted by Member States for a purpose and the same should be respected. India categorically said that conflicts of interest must be clearly avoided while inviting experts and there is no need for a standing committee of experts to advise the INB negotiations at this stage. Ethiopia, referring to calls for expert consultation and stakeholder outreach on PABS, expressed scepticism about what new expertise could the INB possibly look for further, because INB has already listened multiple times to several experts on these issues. The tentative schedule of the INB Meetings is as follows: Week
of 2 September 2024: 9
– 20th September 2024: Week
of 30th September 2024: Week
of 21st October 2024: 4-15th November 2024 12th Meeting of INB The following weeks are reserved for additional INB meetings if necessary:
7-11 April 2025
|
||
