TWN Info Service on Health Issues (Feb25/03)
7 February 2025
Third World Network

WHO: States doubtful on mandate extension for Standing Committee on Health Emergencies

Geneva, 7 February (Nithin Ramakrishnan) – The Standing Committee on Health Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (SCHEPPR) received mixed reviews during the fourth day of the Executive Board (EB) Meeting of WHO, particularly on whether the mandate of the committee should be extended.

The 156^th Session of EB (EB156) is taking place at the WHO Headquarters from 3 to 11 February.

The Committee was established by decision EB150, and its original mandate will end with the closure of the 78^th Session of the World Health Assembly which will take place in May 2025.

The establishment of the SCHEPPR was a contested subject matter during EB150 and EB151, because it preceded the wide sweeping institutional rearrangement that is supposed to take place following the recent amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 and the ongoing negotiations for a WHO Pandemic Agreement.

The temporary mandate for the Committee was conceived as a compromise to reconsider the need for such an institution once the negotiations for IHR amendments and Pandemic Agreement are concluded.  For instance, Namibia during the EB151 meeting had cautioned that the Standing Committee should not overshadow established expert advisory committees, such as the Review Committee on the Functioning of the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 response.

It was also at the behest of developing countries, led by the Botswana and the Africa Group, that the terms of reference of the Committee were amended to include an explicit function to consider the needs expressed by the affected Member States and provide appropriate guidance in this regard to WHO.

As per decisions EB150(6) and EB151(2) the WHO Director-General is to report on the functioning and impact of the Standing Committee to EB156. Accordingly there are two reports currently before EB156, i.e. the report of the Committee (EB156/5), and the report on the Functioning and Impact of the Committee (EB156/45).

The first report (EB156/5) was discussed on 6 February and some countries expressed their reservations regarding the continuation of the mandate after WHA78 (19-27 May 2025). The report proposed certain amendments to the Terms of Reference of the Standing Committee in case the EB decides to extend the mandate.

Canada who responded first stated that, “In our view the standing committee has not fulfilled its peace time potential. We note that the global health security landscape for health emergency prevention preparedness and response landscape has changed significantly since the SCHEPPR was created. As we reflect with care and attention on the future of the SCHEPPR we need to consider both the existing mechanisms for example the IOAC as well as other mechanisms that will come into force prior to EB158”.

Canada explained the major gap that SCHEPPR intended to address was the absence of Member State involvement in health emergency operations, as the WHO Director-General is not mandated to brief the Executive Board though empowered to convene extraordinary meetings.

However, it must be noted the amendments to the IHR 2005 adopted in May 2024 have established a State Parties Implementation Committee and such a committee could address these gaps in the future once the amendments come into force.

Nordic and Baltic countries stated that while they noted the report of the SCHEPPR, the other report on the functioning of the Committee gives food for thought. They stated as follows:

“While taking into account … SCHEPPR has been functioning only for 2 years, we still have concerns about the added value of the committee for the important WHO work on health emergency prevention preparedness and response. in this regard we make following observations:

First we note the listed benefits of SCHEPPR. We also note the list of key challenges is longer and more substantial, including that no recommendation or guidance on [the WHO Health Emergencies Programme] has so far been provided by the Committee and Member States that participated in the survey [the one resulted into the second report] were not very familiar with key aspects of this programme.

Secondly we have questions on the overlap with the mandates and functionings of other committees including the IOAC for health emergencies programme as well as the EB. We note the added value of gathering the committee at the short notice of the public health emergency of international concern is declared, but what would be different if it was the EB that was summoned. This indicates the functions of SCHEPPR actually just as well can be carried out by other existing entities.

Thirdly, we also need to apply a critical cost benefit approach to the work we ask WHO to carry out. The report does not reflect the resources needed for the secretariat to prepare for and carry out meetings of the committee and we know that at this stage every dollar counts.

When these factors are put together we are not convinced that the SCHEPPR mandate deserves to be prolonged beyond May 2025”.

[IOAC refers to the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme.]

Brunei, a new member to the SCHEPPR, welcomed the report and expressed its support for the extension, while improving the mandate. However, it noted the lack of documentation and recommendations as key challenges. Brunei also stressed that inclusivity is the key to governance.

Chile, while supporting extension of the mandate, limited it to one year.

Slovakia called for optimizing the SCHEPPR functions, but also an immediate freezing of its activities until a public health emergency of international concern is declared. It called for broadening the membership of SCHEPPR beyond EB members, even though the Committee is a standing committee of the EB. Slovakia also said the recommendations from the Committee should be based on science and evidence.

Bangladesh, while appreciating the work of SCHEPPR, said that the IHR Implementation Committee established under IHR 2005 can take over the functions of the SCHEPPR going forward and consequently it felt there is no need to extend the mandate beyond May 2025. Regarding the current functioning of the SCHEPPR, Bangladesh raised the absence of a process of hearing of affected Parties for expressing their needs as per paragraph 5.a of the terms of reference.

Africa recognized the role of the SCHEPPR and called for addressing the challenges with urgency.

Bulgaria, Chile and a couple of other countries also called for expanding participation to the other agencies in the SCHEPPR meetings.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that the mandate can be extended for the present, and terms of reference can be updated without overlap with other agencies. It said SCHEPPR should have better roles, than being merely an informing body. 

China, recognizing the value of the Committee, called for the review of its operations and its effectiveness.

The discussions were later suspended for the day. The question of extension of the mandate will be discussed further under another agenda item, which deals with the committees of the EB. The EB is expected to discuss the report on the functioning and impact of SCHEPPR and then address the question of its extension under agenda item 26.3 on 10 February.

Certain developing country delegations told Third World Network that they would like to see SCHEPPR continue until the amended IHR 2005 enters into force. Some of them believe the WHO could undertake another stocktake of affairs after the operationalization of the IHR Implementation Committee and then decide upon the question whether the SCHEPPR needs to continue.