Pandemic Accord Negotiations: Away from Public Glare, but Center of Attention

Newsletter Edition #17 [Treaty Talks]

Hi,

While a new pandemic accord has galvanized many distinct communities in their common goal to improve prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies, they will not be able to fully participate in the creation of such an instrument as negotiations went behind closed doors this week.

My colleague Shoa and I, bring you today’s edition that tries to capture some of the dynamics of the INB meeting this week. We may update this story on the website after the conclusion of the meeting later today. Do come come back and check our website. (We updated our IHR story over the weekend, read the Semantics of Global Health Health Politics, in case you missed it.)

We will continue to monitor both these tracks of negotiations: on the amendments to the IHR and towards a new Pandemic Accord. Although I must confess, it feels like tracking two different formats of a cricket match running in parallel, with the same set of players, playing a different game [“T20” (INB) Vs “Test Match” (IHR)]. I am assuming this metaphor makes sense among some of our readers who may be cricket fans. I may add that Test Matches are often for purists! Also, just as one player can potentially change a game, similarly a few negotiators can be crucial in decisively shaping the direction of the outcome, I am told.

Thank you for reading.

We want subscribers, especially institutions, to support our reporting this year. Do get in touch with us, if you want to discuss ways in which you can support us including by opting for group subscriptions.

Consider supporting our journalism that ensures nuance, detail, and accuracy. Readers paying for our work helps us meet our costs. We are in this for the long haul. Become a paid subscriber if you value our work.

Until later. We may not have an edition next week to recover from this past month.

Best,

Priti

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

---

STORY OF THE WEEK

Pandemic Accord Negotiations: Away from Public Glare, but Center of Attention

By Priti Patnaik & Shoa Moosavi

WHO member states began discussions on the Pandemic Accord based on a Zero Draft that was adopted at the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body this week in Geneva. The meeting was a complex discussion on process, modalities and a first reading of all the provisions of the Zero Draft. Countries also began with text-based negotiations.

It also saw the exclusion of non-state actors (NSAs) from participating as observers in the closed door drafting sessions that included mostly member states. The sheer diversity and the strength of the statements from NSAs including CSOs and other organizations, have been striking, and have made their presence felt in these discussions that have so far been relatively transparent and inclusive.

As countries begin to deal with the details of the suggested provisions in the Zero Draft, a number of questions have arisen on the rationale of some of the language presented. This week, the INB Bureau fielded innumerable comments and questions from member states on the provisions, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The meeting also saw member states being briefed by the Co-Facilitators of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response. Ambassadors from New York have been in Geneva to explore “areas of harmonization and synergy between New York and Geneva in the area of PPPR”, and to exchange ideas on the Political Declaration, in relation with the ongoing INB and IHR (2005) processes.

Listening to some of the discussions from the proceedings that were webcast, sounded similar to the positions taken by countries at the WG-IHR meeting last week. And yet the context is really different, notwithstanding the underlying legal nature of the instruments. One, the IHR is broader than a new Pandemic Accord, since the latter seems to be geared only towards pandemics and not health emergencies in general. Secondly, at this point, there is a “coalition” of the Friends of the Treaty, while there is no such grouping in the IHR discussions. And what is also particular about the Pandemic Accord negotiations, is the diversity of interests among the Friends. As these negotiations become real, the sustainability of this grouping that presides over seemingly contradictory positions will come under pressure.

Like in the WG-IHR, there is a propensity among certain member states to defer tricky matters of Intellectual Property, and Access and Benefits sharing, into other forums such as the WTO, the WIPO, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, respectively. This is even as there is a fair amount of appetite among developing countries to address these issues in a WHO Pandemic Accord in relation to existing international agreements.

So while splitting forums can be a way of fragmenting policy making on difficult issues, the complex intersectionality of issues will confront member states at every turn. As statements from a number of countries show, that it will be difficult to fully delineate matters of financing, climate change, One Health, Access and Benefits Sharing among others.

This story looks at statements from member states and from NSAs on certain key issues, and looks at some of the dynamics in these negotiations.

Image Credit: Photo by Md Nafish Sadik, Pexels