Pressure Builds On Countries To Embrace Weak Pandemic Agreement, Operationalizing Equity at Risk with a Framework Approach

Newsletter Edition #81 [Treaty Talks]

Hi,

Journalism does not allow for wishful thinking.

Things are not looking good for the Pandemic Treaty discussions in Geneva. Diplomats are telling us that the process is at a real risk of unraveling.

But as ever, the curious ways of Geneva, and the invisible hand that shapes global health, could yet forge a face-saving exercise, and magically pull out a much-compromised agreement in six weeks from now.

In today’s edition we bring you a quick update on the final draft of the Pandemic Agreement due for consideration later this month. We also discuss a resolution text that is slated to be taken up at the World Health Assembly next month.

Earlier this week, we brought you a detailed analysis that preceded the final draft, not much different from what came after. (See Next Draft of The Pandemic Agreement Will Likely Have No Fund and No Binding Obligations On Pathogen Access & Benefits Sharing, Defers Modalities to Conference of Parties)

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!

Thank you for reading.

We regret the delay in getting this to you.

I am away at a journalism conference this week, showcasing the value of our journalism for the global health community, in order to shore up resources for this initiative. If you have ideas or introductions to make, write to me!

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. Analysis: Draft Pandemic Agreement

Pressure Builds On Countries To Embrace Weak Pandemic Agreement, Operationalizing Equity at Risk with a Framework Approach

---

Earlier this week the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body released the latest draft of the Pandemic Agreement due for consideration at a resumed meeting beginning April 29^th that will see marathon negotiations with an aim to conclude this process by May 10^th.

The text is not markedly different from a previous version on which we reported on April 16th but there are certain changes – these we discuss below. The latest version has not been officially published by the INB yet.

What is also on the table is a draft resolution text that lays out the link between the main agreement and processes that would follow the adoption of the text at the Assembly including setting up of Intergovernmental Working Groups for certain provisions, immediate tasks for the WHO Director-General to follow through.  

Preliminary assessment by countries seem to reveal three possibilities on the way forward according to those familiar with the discussions: one is to accept the text and conclude negotiations; second to buy more time in order to strive for a more meaningful agreement; and third to walk away from the text and effectively declare a failure of this process.

The political pressure to accept the latest draft, a much watered-down version, is very high. Not only from Geneva-based actors, but also from capitals. But countries will have to make a political choice on the extent to which they will support the draft in its current form, diplomatic sources tell us.

At the moment, the draft mostly adopts a framework approach where countries broadly agree on principles, but defers practical actions to implement these principles to a later stage. The lack of time to conclude on the details, leaves little choice but to go down this road – unless countries decide otherwise in the coming days. There has been little appetite for a framework approach from many countries both developing and developed ones, and yet, it now has precipitated into a reality.

Such an outcome is no surprise to anyone following these discussions for the last two years. Whether these circumstances can be attributed to countries, the INB Bureau, or even the WHO, will continue to be discussed in the years to come. A range of factors have contributed to poor planning and design, and the conduct of these discussions, observers have said. To be sure, the sheer complexity of this task where 194 countries agree to a common set of binding rules in a deeply fractured world, is lost on no one, and has been fraught with challenges right from the beginning.

In this story, we look at new additions and omissions, over the draft version we reported on. And we also review the resolution text below. We spoke with numerous diplomats for this story.

Image Credit: Photo by Artem Podrez, Pexels