Consensus Elusive. Countries to Decide Next Steps, Likely to Request Additional Time To Conclude Pandemic Agreement
Newsletter Edition #91 [Treaty Talks]
Hi,
Negotiators in Geneva remained engaged into the wee hours in the morning this week. But as D-Day arrives, they have been unable to reach consensus on a number of different areas towards a new Pandemic Agreement.
In this edition we bring you a quick update on where the process stands and views from people on the ground.
We will follow up this story based on what WHO member states decide later today on the way ahead for these crucial talks.
Support public interest global health journalism, become a paying subscriber. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive. Help us raise important questions, and in keeping an ear to the ground. Readers paying for our work makes this possible.
Our gratitude to our subscribers who help us stay in the game!
Best,
Priti
Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com. Follow us on X: @filesgeneva
I. ANALYSIS: PANDEMIC AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
Consensus Elusive. Countries to Decide Next Steps, Likely to Request Additional Time To Conclude Pandemic Agreement
It was a beautiful, sunny day here in Geneva, when it became clear that countries will not be able to reach consensus on the Pandemic Agreement and are likely to buy more time to conclude these negotiations. While the tension in the air is palpable, there also seems to be a resignation mixed with a recognition of the limitation of time.
Numerous diplomats across countries are of the view that reaching consensus on a number of outstanding areas is not possible by the end of May 10th, the final scheduled day to conclude these negotiations.
In a briefing to nonstate actors on May 9, Roland Driece, Co-Chair from the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body indicated that it was unlikely that countries would reach consensus on the Pandemic Agreement. He reportedly said that only a miracle could help reach consensus in the final hours of the negotiations.
Relevant stakeholders in the process, including civil society organizations and experts involved in the process, huddled to discuss the possible implications, and the way ahead in order to conclude the negotiations.
For this story we spoke with diplomatic sources, activists and others, tracking these negotiations in person at WHO where these discussions unfolded.
While the persistent efforts by WHO member states for a new instrument to govern pandemics has dominated the policy space in Geneva in the aftermath of COVID-19, it also invigorated a range of actors across the world from civil society organizations, the private sector, scholars, and other stakeholders, including international organizations at the forefront of dealing with the ramifications of a pandemic that cost over 15 million excess deaths.
After three years of discussions on Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response, and two years since countries decided to establish the INB to work on an international instrument, the expectations around this process has acquired a high political profile.
There is no doubt member states have engaged every step of the way in distilling their ambitions, fighting for their positions, building alliances in a bid to craft a global agreement to govern pandemics. But these efforts have so far not been paid off yet.
From the beginning, countries were up against a very tight deadline that they set up for themselves. As this vast process took shape and form, it became evident, that the current draft after numerous iterations, with 30+ provisions dealing from surveillance, response, research and development, production, technology transfer, pathogen access & benefit sharing, compliance, financing, governance, to name just a few, needs additional time to negotiate carefully. Every single of these provisions have been contested.
But time has not been the only factor contributing to this outcome. Largely countries have been unhappy with the way these negotiations have been designed, managed and conducted. We have reported on these pages, how process considerations have impinged on member states’ ability to negotiate.
While developed countries have been in favor of parallel sessions and informals, among other formats, to make progress on seemingly complex areas, developing countries (and developed countries too) spent far too much time in ensuring they are heard, and in putting back their reform proposals in every iteration conducted by the Bureau in conjunction with the WHO secretariat, over the last two years. It was only starting April 29th, 2024, at the latest meeting of the INB, did countries actually begin to engage in text-based negotiations.
Most of all, the unwillingness to compromise from their positions, has led to a situation of gridlock, experts say. COVID-19 began with the U.S. and China at loggerheads. The geopolitical climate has only worsened in the years since. The period of the INB negotiations, have been punctuated by the two on-going wars – Russia’s aggression in Ukraine starting February 2022, and Israel’s offensive in the Palestinian Territories aided by allies (following attacks by Hamas in October 2023).
But the lack of consensus also reveals a contested balance of power. As we have noted earlier, the balance of power in these multilateral negotiations have been defined not only by the big developing countries of Brazil, China and India, (the original Treaty sceptics if you recall), but also by the 54-member Africa Group and a host of other nations in Asia and Latin America among others.
Having lived through the acute crisis in the inequitable access to medical products during the COVID-19, most developing countries have so far refused, in these negotiations, to accept status quo arrangements that have underscored the paradigms in the international response to the pandemic.
As the sun was setting last evening, a developed country diplomat told us, “The G7 expected that developing countries, including the Africa Group would give in, after all they need the treaty more than high income countries.”
The original demandeurs for a Pandemic Agreement have been the European Union led by the European Council, who championed the idea and brought other Asian, African and Latin America countries on board.
Now what?
Observers invested in the process are of the view that countries must “freeze” the text while future modalities are negotiated by countries. The World Health Assembly later this month will need to endorse how these discussions can proceed.
“They should not restart the process, but continue from where they left off having negotiated and worked so hard over the last three years,” Ellen ‘t Hoen, of Medicines Law and Policy told us.
While the lack of consensus is now framed as brackets in a text marked with yellow, and some parts in green, countries have spent months in understanding each other’s proposals, engaged in consultations and negotiated on positions.
For some, the distance to concluding these talks is not too far. Yet there is recognition that a legal document such as this agreement needs careful consideration. Many diplomats are reluctant to leave the final details to politicians who will arrive for the World Health Assembly later in the month.
“No one wants to take their chances – ministers may undo our careful, technical work,” a developed country negotiator told us.
Many countries recognize the importance of finalising an agreement that will serve the world in the coming decades, and are of the opinion that this should not be rushed through.
There are no indications at this stage that any country would walk away from the process. Sources said that the process going forward could likely transition into an open ended working group, with a new team to take the process in the last mile.
Whatever direction emerges later tonight, it is clear that member states are in the driving seat at WHO. This in itself is significant for multilateralism in global health.
And remember, it is not over till it is over. Watch this space.
And next week, all eyes on the final meeting of the Working Group to amend the International Health Regulations. Countries would be looking for a desperate win.
Other recent stories from us in the last few days:
Did a colleague forward this edition to you? Sign up to receive our newsletters & support Geneva Health Files!
Global health is everybody’s business. Help us probe the dynamics where science and politics interface with interests. Support investigative global health journalism.