"Equity" in the International Health Regulations, Makes it to the Negotiating Table

Newsletter Edition #71 [Treaty Talks]

Hi,

The power of multilateralism has gotten subdued under the harsh glare of geopolitics, driven by the forces of nationalism and protectionism. It is magical what countries have created in the past - the evolution of the International Health Regulations over the last few decades - is one such example. Many believe that the IHR is a fairly balanced instrument. Undoubtedly it was a simpler world.

Countries find themselves again at the cusp of reframing and making these rules fit for purpose, albeit in a world with fractured priorities, continuously being shaped by commercial and political compulsions.

In today’s edition we bring you an update from a meeting of the Working Group set up to amend the IHR - that for the first time discussed equity-related proposals in any substantive manner.

Also have I mentioned how decisive a single individual can be, in shaping multilateral negotiations? Individual leadership matters, for posterity, irrespective of outcome!

Watch out for our signature analysis on the new negotiating text of a draft Pandemic Agreement, coming soon.

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: Resumed Session WGIHR7

“Equity” in the IHR, Makes it to the Negotiating Table

By Priti Patnaik & Tessa Jager

---

After more than a year when some developing countries led by the Africa Group and Bangladesh, submitted substantial proposals aimed at formulating binding obligations that seek to address the equitable access to medical products during health emergencies, these proposals finally made it to the negotiations this past week in Geneva.

At a resumed session of a meeting of the Working Group set up to amend the IHRs, WHO member states met on March 8, to consider text circulated by the Bureau on a set of provisions including Article 13, Article 13A (new provision), Article 44, Article 44A (new provision) and proposals for Annex 1.

These set of provisions address public health response, financing, and collaboration. They have been some of the most contentious provisions in the context of the amendments to the IHRs touching upon matters of intellectual property, local production, access and benefits sharing among others. These provisions have also been perceived by some countries and stakeholders as “expanding” the scope of these technical regulations.

Any substantive discussions on these provisions were relegated to these final weeks of the negotiations, often with the argument by mostly developed countries, including this time, that the matter of equity was also being discussed at the INB in the context of a new Pandemic Agreement. But pending consensus towards, and subsequent adoption and ratification of, a new agreement, developing countries have been keen on having equity provisions in existing regulations.

In this story we look at the text submitted by the Bureau of the WGIHR, and countries’ response to these proposals for amendments. We spoke with numerous negotiators on the sidelines of the meeting in Geneva on March 8, 2024.

Image Credit: Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA, Pexels