Countries Sink Teeth into the Form of a Pandemic Agreement [INB11 Update]

Newsletter Edition #104 [Treaty Talks]

Hi,

I am not a lawyer. But we are now in the territory of high-flying legal abstraction in the ongoing negotiations towards a Pandemic Agreement at WHO. Like before, the politics in these discussions shapes the way legal considerations are made.

My colleague Nishant (who is a lawyer!), has helped me putting together this interesting edition on the nuts and bolts of the legal form that the Pandemic Agreement (PA), and the shape its various components might take (Annex Vs Protocol). We also present country statements that reveal concerns and the way member states are weighing benefits of form vs substance (“No PA without PABS”).

So although these negotiations will get dense from here on, we have your back, as we capture the legal and the political, in these fairly technical discussions!

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!

Until later.

Best,

Priti

Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com. Follow us on X: @filesgeneva

---

Illustration Credit: Amy Clarke, Chembe Collaborative

I. UPDATE FROM INB11

Countries Sink Teeth into the Form of a Pandemic Agreement

By Priti Patnaik & Nishant Sirohi

---

After a hiatus of a few brief weeks, WHO member states gathered for the 11^th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body seeking to inject renewed vigour towards concluding a Pandemic Agreement in the coming months.

We reported earlier that the mpox emergency adds to the urgency of these negotiations, as prevailing approaches to address this health crisis is struggling to match up towards an effective response following the familiar paths of the response to earlier emergencies including COVID-19, Ebola among others.

Countries meet under the aegis of a revitalised gender-balanced Bureau of the INB, with effectively two new members, including the appointment this week, of Anne-Claire Amprou, French Ambassador for Global Health, as a co-chair of this process till the negotiations conclude.  

This week, WHO member states got down to business sinking their teeth into the more practical aspects of form and structure of the Pandemic Agreement. They also began to discuss their preferences on the shape that some of the key negotiating chips in these negotiations - namely provisions such as Pathogen Access Benefits Sharing (PABS) and One Health - could take in a future agreement.

In the course of two weeks, countries are meeting in drafting mode considering key articles on PABS, prevention, surveillance, technology transfer, research and development, among others.

Countries will continue discussing and negotiating in formal and informal meetings over the coming days until September 20th. Some delegations already view this meeting as a make-or-break opportunity – particularly those “gunning” for the December deadline to conclude the negotiations.

Top officials associated with process informed the meeting that if countries choose to convene a special session in December 2024 for the adoption of a potential agreement, they must decide by November 12. (The next formal meeting of the INB is slated for November 4^th-15^th.)

In this story, we focus on two key elements: on the legal architecture of the new instrument, and coherence with the International Health Regulations – topics that were discussed over the past few days. As before these discussions already reveal a fair amount of embedded politics.   

Image Credit: Photo by Robert Clark, Pexels