|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (Mar26/05) WHO: Efforts Intensify to Find a Compromise Framework on PABS 28 March, Geneva (Nithin Ramakrishnan) - As hope fades to find consensus on the negotiating text, WHO Member States moved away from the text-based negotiations on the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system to explore a possible compromise framework on the 5th day of the 6th meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG). The Co-Chairs suspended the evening drafting session and Member States organised informal discussions on a possible compromise framework for the PABS system of the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement (PA). This framework is then to provide a basis for the next round of negotiations. The IGWG6 is taking place at the WHO Headquarters, Geneva in a hybrid mode from 23 to 28 March. An informal meeting was organised in a smaller room in the evening of 27 March, which according to some delegates is a positive start, and according to some others an attempt to see if developing countries can be forced to agree to a compromise formula based on fresh conceptual discussions, rather than based on Article 12 of the PA.. According to a few developing country delegates the idea to hold such a session has come up due to the opposition from a several developed countries to hold another round of negotiations based on the current on-screen text. These developed countries have informally conveyed their disinterest to hold another round based the current text and stated that a framework containing consensus on the outcomes is necessary to continue the negotiations. The informal discussion was attended by the WHO Secretariat including the Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. According to sources, there is a two-column working document prepared for discussing a compromise framework; the first column discusses access-related obligations and second column discusses benefit sharing obligations. Interestingly the table only shows there is convergence on paragraph 6 of Article 12, but there is no convergence on Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 12. However, sources state that no consensus has been reached on critical issues including benefit sharing commitments during a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). On 28 March, discussions will be reconvened to find a compromise framework. There is no proposal from the EU and other developed countries to define and specify the options for sharing access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics (VTDs) to prevent PHEICs or during PHEICs. There is effectively an objection to every proposal made to ensure recipients accessing pathogens or data must have undertaken an obligation to share benefits by the Global North. According to G6 (group if developed countries) and the European Union, this is for providing flexibility to pharmaceutical companies to protect their commercial interests. [Since the withdrawn of the USA from the WHO earlier the group of Group 7 countries now identify themselves as Group of 6.] On the other hand, developing countries have expressed their willingness to consider developing built-in concessions and/or flexibilities for the participating manufacturers within a standardized contractual instrument and have proposed variations of the benefit sharing provisions to be included in the such contracts. They have indicated the need to make the PABS system operational on day 1 of the entry of force of the PA, by coming forward with middle ground solutions. However, the EU and G6 continue to ignore such compromise proposals and are pushing further negotiations with respect to operationalizing the PABS system to be undertaken by the Conference of Parties (COP) to the PA. Thus it's clear that there are no compromises made by developed countries, other than leaving benefit sharing obligations not only to future negotiations by the COP but also to open-ended bilateral negotiations between WHO and recipients of PABS resources. The WHO Secretariat, certain member states and non-state actors are also aligning with the EU and G6 proposals and are seen to be approaching developing countries to accept a model where contentious issues will be further subjected to the COP negotiations. Accepting the G6/EU model means the PABS system will not be operational when the PA enters into force and it will be subjected to further negotiations in successive COPs. The entire IGWG Bureau text and secretariat documents circulated prior to IGWG6 backed this model of postponing operationalization of the PABS system. Diplomatic sources say the WHO Secretariat is contacting the capitals of developing country negotiators, who are strong in the IGWG, exploring possibilities of making them withdraw or weaken their demands. Meanwhile developed countries are sending note verbales/de marches to developing country governments asking them to fall in line with the demands of G6 and allies in the IGWG. There were Ambassadorial level meetings also held by the WHO DG during the week. Several negotiators told civil society organisations CSOs) that some of these actors are even telling them not to listen to CSOs arguing, that they are spreading false narratives etc. They are also attempting to pressurize developing countries by saying that unless they agree to some of the hardline positions of G6 and the EU as so-called “middle grounds” there will be no solution.+
|
||
