Formal Vs Informal Sessions: The Politics to Get Provisions In or Out? [Update INB6 Pandemic Accord]
Formal Vs Informal Sessions: The Politics to Get Provisions In or Out? [Update INB6 Pandemic Accord]
Newsletter Edition #35 [Treaty Talks - News Flash]
Hi,
Process has outsized implications for outcome. And politics underlie the process. To understand the outcome months down the line, we must pay attention to the unfolding process today.
Our update in this edition is on the conclusion of the sixth meeting of the INB in Geneva this week and discussions on the way forward.
We bring you this quick update on a Sunday - it also shows how quickly these processes are moving.
If you find our work valuable, support us! Accountability journalism is tough and expensive. Help us in raising important questions and bringing closed door negotiations to light in a timely manner. Readers paying for our work helps us meet our costs.
Watch out for our coverage of the meeting of the working group for the amendments to the IHR this coming week.
Until later!
Best,
Priti
Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com or genevahealthfiles@protonmail.com; Follow us on Twitter: @filesgeneva
I. NEWS UPDATE: INB6
Formal Vs Informal Sessions: The Politics to Get Provisions In or Out?
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body wrapped up its deliberations last week on July 21 - a process that saw member states completing a review of the Bureau’s text. (See our earlier update on the INB6 here.)
The conclusion of the sixth meeting of the INB saw extensive discussions between countries on the way forward. The agreed text below reflects the tough negotiations on the process for progressing these discussions in informal sessions.
THE REPORT OF INB6
At the closing of the meeting of the INB6 on July 21, the INB agreed to the following:
Para 5 of the report of the meeting as shared on screen during the webcast:
“The INB decided that the September Meeting will include informal meetings of the afore mentioned Articles. The co-facilitators are encouraged to work, as appropriate to improve the text, with a view to identifying areas of divergence and facilitating convergence and will be invited to report on progress during the September meeting of the INB Drafting Group, with the understanding that the informal meeting reports are without prejudice to the right of any Member State to present textual proposals and to the status of the compilation document. The September meeting will be invited to agree on the way forward in line with the mandate established by the Health Assembly in decision SSA2(5) that the INB shall submit its outcome for consideration by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly. The INB expressed appreciation to the Secretariat and requested the Secretariat to continue to provide necessary arrangements to ensure meeting facilities throughout the process until adoption of the WHO CA+.”
[Emphasis in bold ours]
It was also decided that the informals will continue along previously held sessions on Articles 9 [R&D], 12 [ABS] and 13 [Supply Chain & Production]. In addition, new informals will also be held on Article 4 [Pandemic prevention and public health surveillance] and 5 [Strengthening pandemic prevention and preparedness through a One Health approach] , to be co-facilitated by India, Tanzania and the United Kingdom. The informal on Article 11 [Co-development and transfer of technology and know-how] will be co-facilitated by Colombia, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia.
(The report of the meeting is not published yet.)
FORMAL VS INFORMAL: WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
The sensitivity of the current period cannot be overstated. The preparation of a negotiating text – irrespective of whether it is called a first draft, or another iteration of the Bureau’s text, will determine the level at which actual negotiations for the Pandemic Accord will commence.
There will be a drafting group meeting of the INB in early September 2023. This is expected to be preceded by informal discussions between member states sources said.
“We need to get to a point where we have the negotiating text. The bureau has to provide a negotiating text,” a diplomatic source in Geneva told us this week.
The Bureau will be working on another iteration of the current text. “We have asked the Bureau to draw upon the compilation text. Countries told the Bureau that they have everything they need in the form of all the proposals from member states.” They should do a better job at reflecting our proposals, the diplomat said.
The problem is the Bureau’s text tries to capture convergence and shows some options where members disagree.
“But the problem with the informals is, there is an effort to park major divergences between countries, outside of the formal INB meetings. We want these to be dealt with in the formal meetings, not in the informal ones,” a developing country diplomat told us this week.
Most countries do believe that the informals are useful in so far as such sessions enable countries to understand each other’s positions better. “We do not contest the importance of the informals as a tool to aide discussions, but these cannot be forums where we negotiate,” a developing country delegate said.
But not many trust that these sessions will be fair and adequate to capture all suggestions that developing countries will have, especially with respect to equity-related provisions.
There are also concerns with the role of co-facilitators. See our previous story on some suggestions made by co-facilitators on how to structure informals.
“It is much easier for more powerful countries to prevail upon co-facilitators, than the six-member INB bureau”, a senior diplomat from a large developing country told us.
Another diplomat said, “Not all countries will trust the co-facilitators to capture their interests, especially if the smaller delegations are not even able to attend some of these informal sessions,” emphasizing the need for formal processes to anchor the negotiations.
THE TRICKY POSITION OF CO-FACILITATORS
These concerns and dynamics also reveal the tight rope that countries that are co-facilitators have to walk. “The informals are useful to talk clearly about the elements of each article, outside of the noise of the wider INB,” a source familiar with the co-facilitation process told us. We need to get an agreement on what empowerment of co-facilitators means, the diplomat involved in these informal discussions added.
The preference of some of the developed countries in favor of informal sessions is striking. In general, most big countries developed and developing ones do have capacity to play an influential role even in informal sessions. But the problem is acutely faced by smaller countries, already straining at their limits of participation across multiple forums. (See excerpts from countries’ statements here.)
Sources familiar with the discussions also hinted that even among developing countries there is disagreement about the process of using informal sessions to make progress.
And it is not that countries have not given their best over the last two years of these discussions. Impressive number of proposals were made by many countries for both tracks of negotiations – the Pandemic Accord and for the amendments to the IHR. But they are now faced with a situation when they effectively have to deploy diplomatic capacities to lobby co-facilitators to include their suggested language during the proceedings of the informals, with the hope that such proposals will be taken up by the formal INB discussions.
WHITHER COMPILATION TEXT?
Diplomats say that this long-winded repetitive process could have been avoided, if the compilation text would be the basis of the negotiation.
But senior Bureau officials have already explained that it would not be feasible to negotiate off a 208 page document. (The compilation text with country positions have not been officially published by the Bureau in line with member states’ preferences.)
Some countries disagree with this approach of not using the compilation text. “In other forums, including during the negotiation of the Paris Agreement during the climate negotiations, for example, countries began with a bulky text with all the proposals. This was brought down by half, and the final agreement was less than 30 pages,” one diplomat explained to us.
Whatever it is, countries are bracing for the months ahead. “We essentially have less than four months by December 2023, to reach a consensus. After December it is going to be hell for the negotiators,” a developed country diplomat said. Many expect long meetings in order to reach any agreement on really difficult issues.
DG TEDROS UPS THE ANTE
In his remarks on two separate occasions, DG Tedros drove home the importance of these negotiations.
During the weekly press briefing, Tedros alluded to vested interests stymieing the process:
“…However, just as mis- and disinformation undermined the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, so mis- and disinformation is undermining these efforts to keep the world safer from future pandemics.
20 years ago, the tobacco industry tried to undermine negotiations on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
The same thing is happening now. Groups with vested interests are claiming falsely that the accord is a power grab by WHO, and that it will stymie innovation and research.
Both claims are completely false.
I need to put this plainly: those who peddle lies about this historic agreement are endangering the health and safety of future generations.
If two companies sign a business contract, and use lawyers to help them develop it, that doesn’t give the lawyers control over the contract, nor make them a party to it.
It’s the same here. The pandemic accord is an agreement between countries, and WHO is helping them to develop that agreement.
But WHO will not be a party to the agreement. As the countries themselves have pointed out repeatedly, this is an agreement between countries, and countries alone. This accord aims to address the lack of solidarity and equity that hampered the global response to COVID-19….”
EQUITABLE ACCESS VS INNOVATION: “STRIKING A BALANCE”
Tedros also clearly articulated the tensions in the negotiations by touching on sensitive nerve points of equitable access and innovation, in his remarks at the joint meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body and the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) – 21 July 2023. He also referred to the UNGA meeting on PPR that will be finalised next week.
Excerpt of Tedros’ remarks at the joint session:
“… In its report to the World Health Assembly in 2021, the IHR Review Committee concluded that the IHR fulfils its original aim, and that no major amendments were needed.
They did note however, that the implementation of the IHR by both the WHO Secretariat and States Parties was suboptimal.
We therefore need a stronger IHR, fit-for-purpose and focused on its objective and principles.
But it’s also clear that as a complement to a stronger IHR, the world needs a binding agreement between nations, akin to agreements on other major threats to health including tobacco and climate change.
In December 2021, the Special Session of the World Health Assembly adopted its landmark decision to establish the INB.
Since then, you have discussed multiple drafts, leading now to the Bureau’s text that addresses many key issues:
Strengthening capacities and infrastructure;
A whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach;
Timely and equitable access to pandemic-related products;
Financing of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response;
And guided by the principle of solidarity.
All of these elements are essential, but insufficient on their own.
It is only the combined strength of all of them together that will truly keep the world safer.
Your mandate to develop a new paradigm, a new approach with equity at its core, has never been more important.
An amended IHR that fails to address the gaps exposed by COVID-19 will not make the world safer.
Likewise, a pandemic accord that fails to ensure equitable access to pandemic-related products, fails.
We do not have to choose between equitable access and innovation.
We do not have to choose between protecting public health and making a fair profit.
We can strike a balance.
Harmonization and alignment between the two processes is essential, as well as with the UN General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, which will be held in just a few weeks’ time.
Next week, Member States will meet to have the fourth hearing on the draft political declaration for the high-level meeting.
We are expecting an ambitious political declaration, that supports the Member State processes in Geneva, while emphasizing WHO at the centre of the global health architecture.
Even as these processes continue, WHO is continuing to work with Member States and partners to strengthen the global health emergency architecture, should the next pandemic erupt tomorrow.
The aim of this work is to bridge gaps, while you discuss sustainable solutions for the future.
I wish to emphasize that the Secretariat’s work is a complement to the work of Member States, and in no way replaces nor pre-empts it.
I applaud the transparency and inclusiveness that the two processes have followed.
Through your efforts, led by your Bureaus, you have an historic opportunity to shape the future of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response for generations to come.
This has been and continues to be a Member State-led process, where sovereign countries are building on the lessons learned to improve for the future.
These are your processes. The WHO Secretariat is here to support you in fulfilling that historic mandate.
Member States must be bold and constructive in their approach and move towards consensus and middle ground. If there is a will, there is always a balance that can bring opposing ideas into the middle.
The world is watching us, and the stakes are high. A bold outcome will be testament to the importance you give to the processes.
As you continue your work, I have four requests for you:
First, I urge you to deliver the pandemic accord in May 2024, as a generational commitment. The next pandemic will not wait for us. We must be ready.
Second, I urge you to deliver strong and effective amendments to the International Health Regulations in May 2024, to improve their implementation. We must seize this opportunity.
Third, I urge you to ensure that any outcome of the High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response in September supports and strengthens the Member State-led processes here in Geneva.
And fourth, I urge you to make equity the driving force for change, with solidarity as the moral compass…”
The joint session of the two bureaux continues on July 24. We will follow up with a story on it subsequently.
Also from us:
Global health is everybody’s business. Help us probe the dynamics where science and politics interface with interests. Support investigative global health journalism.