Science Diplomacy As a Tool for Pandemic Accord Negotiations
Newsletter Edition #142 [The Friday Deep Dives]
Hi,
This week WHO member states discussed ways to begin work on putting together an outline for the substantive elements for a new Pandemic Accord. Diplomats discussed science and policy, social behaviour and international cooperation.
In today’s edition, we look at whether science diplomacy can help aid these negotiations. My colleague Julia Dötzer, brings this story for you.
The discussions within the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, is happening in the background of the upcoming Ministerial Conference at the World Trade Organization where science has not shaped trade negotiations as much as it should have, and it remains to be seen whether diplomacy will have any success.
Watch out for our updates from MC12, as the action moves to the shores of Lac Léman with trade ministers descending down to beef up trade diplomacy. If you want to support our coverage of the Ministerial, consider becoming paying subscribers. You can also make donations towards meeting our reporting costs.
Also check out my story from this morning for The Wire, in India: Have India and South Africa, Lead Sponsors of the TRIPS Waiver Proposal, Reconciled to a Weak Text?
Thank you for reading.
Until next week!
Priti
Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com or genevahealthfiles@protonmail.com; Follow us on Twitter: @filesgeneva
I. STORY OF THE WEEK
Science Diplomacy As a Tool for Pandemic Accord Negotiations
By Julia Dötzer & Priti Patnaik
At the recently concluded 75th World Health Assembly, member states of WHO went through many hours of negotiations, and disagreements on terminology around sexual orientation with respect to a new strategy on HIV, Hepatitis B and Sexually Trasnmitted Infections (STIs), that was subsequently noted after much debate. Ultimately the strategy was adopted after a vote, at the cusp of the closure of the assembly.
This brought attention to why some member states debated on these issues when there is science and evidence to back these policies. At the subsequent Executive Board meeting of the WHO, following the Assembly, there was much discussion on what this means for diplomacy and cooperation between member states.
These are difficult but useful questions in Geneva, a city where science and diplomacy come together to shape global health and other technical domains. So what is science diplomacy and why is it important?
The recently concluded Science Diplomacy Week in Geneva could shed some light into this complexity as health diplomats in Geneva get into a hectic summer of negotiations around a new pandemic instrument.
According to experts, Science Diplomacy refers to the use of scientific knowledge in multilateral cooperation to address existing (international) problems in a scientifically sound manner.
The utilization of scientific evidence for diplomatic negotiations strengthens multilateral collaborations via the use of a common language which could be particularly significant in light of this year's World Health Assembly theme: “Health for peace, peace for health”. Science in diplomacy can play an important part for streamlined international cooperation. But what does that actually look like in practice?
“Diverging professional cultures, priorities, timelines, formats, and focus areas, among others, are deeply rooted in the very different social processes of science and policy-making”, Nicolas Seidler, executive director of the Geneva Science-Policy Interface (GSPI) told us. (This is precisely what was observed at the WHA when some member states wrestled with references to sexual orientation and acknowledging specific communities, in strategies to fight diseases.)
The GSPI works on science diplomacy by “supporting and strengthening the capacity of academic actors and International Geneva policy actors to engage and collaborate towards evidence-based policies able to address global challenges.” It was created in 2018 by the University of Geneva and the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs to develop transversal support at the boundary of science and diplomacy applied in multilateral contexts.
“Geneva, with its concentration of actors spanning the boundaries of science and global policy, offers a unique setting to imagine and implement mechanisms to better prevent and respond to future health crises”, Seidler noted.
Science Diplomacy: Where Science and Politics Meet (Almost)
Science plays a significant role in creating policies. Not only for more peaceful negotiations but also for the credibility and justifiability of political decisions for society. As experience shows, however, pure scientific information is not enough. There are countless publications with which nothing further is done in the aftermath, let alone incorporated into political action. With the flood of scientific evidence, policymakers first need to know what information they can use to address their specific problem. Scientists, on the other hand, need to make their voices heard, energize their networks, and demonstrate their credibility and accountability. Both professions, scientists and politicians, are trained for their specific, very different tasks and cannot simply be lumped together.
In a recently published opinion piece, Maxime Stauffer, Senior-Science Policy Officer at GSPI, explains: “Putting scientists into policy roles has limitations. During COVID-19, we have seen several countries whose key decision-makers were scientists (e.g. Sweden). While hiring scientists to make policies is a natural way to foster evidence-based policy, it has limitations. A scientist is trained in producing rigorous information. A policy professional is trained (or should be trained) in handling uncertainty, regardless of the state of the evidence. Having scientists manage uncertainty can lead to myopia on evidence rigour, lack of speed, and lack of ability to navigate trade-offs productively.”
Stauffer emphasizes how science diplomacy needs actors who speak both languages - science and politics - to overcome these barriers and make a sufficient use of science within diplomacy. According to him, these actors have the functions of creating networks, stimulating exchange, identifying research relevance, building capacity, picking up windows of opportunity, and ensuring sustainability. Especially Geneva, the city where international politics and science emerge, seems to be perfect to see science diplomacy in practice or at least to implement it in a sustainable way.
According to experts, unfortunately there are often many barriers for external actors, such as scientists or civil society. For example, the complexity of operations of the international organizations based in Geneva often excludes external actors from negotiations. Since this usually includes academics, among others, they are often left in the dark, making it difficult to navigate the network and influence policy through research, Stauffer said at the recent event in Geneva.
Is Geneva hard to navigate?
As a crucible where science and politics meld together, Geneva offers a unique ecosystem, but there is more than meets the eye.
Stauffer explained further at the event in Geneva:
“Geneva is essentially like an ideal ecosystem for science policy boundary spanning, because you have many actors, and if you are in this network, you can actually work on connecting these different people to make progress. It is ideal, yes, but the problem is when we engage in international Geneva, it often feels like this…..it often feels like walking in fog, when we can do one step at a time and we need to learn from failures. And this is because a lot of things that happen in Geneva are tacit. Not all the processes are published. We cannot anticipate everything and reverse engineer the process, the research that needs to be conducted.
And therefore the boundary spanners in Geneva, they need to have extra competencies. They need to know the processes of many international organizations, the potential of important member states on certain questions, in order to develop good framing of research.
However, there is a problem. It is that the opacity and the complexity of an ecosystem like Geneva excludes external actors. If researchers want to engage with international Geneva, it is very hard to navigate. It is very hard to know who to talk to, when and where. And the problem is that many of these external actors are scientists, are researchers. And therefore, it's hard for scientists beyond maybe the ones that are based in Geneva to know what's going on in Geneva and to actually contribute. So in order to make progress, essentially the vision is that we want better policies through science. And for that we need science and policy to inform each other”
(See the recording of the session to understand the fuller context in which these remarks were made.)
Nevertheless the city is rich with lessons across domains. And this can be useful for global health governance.
Lessons From the Environmental Domain For Global Health
Global health can greatly benefit from the lessons in science diplomacy from other policy areas. Take the political discourse around climate change.
Stauffer outlined an illustration of the practical significance of science and diplomacy. Speaking at an event, “Spanning boundaries between science and policy in international Geneva”, during the Science Diplomacy week he explained:
“There are countless publications about the effects of climate change on the environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an UN body is a great example of generating scientific knowledge for subsequent use in diplomatic discourse. In order to inform politicians negotiating an international agreement, the IPCC develops scientific information and presents it in a synthesized report. The actual meeting to inform the politicians ended up not being attended by 2/3 of the Assembly.”
(In his remarks, Stauffer referred to a recent meeting at the Swiss Federal Parliament where many right-wing politicians were not present at a briefing by climate experts on global warming and the biodiversity crisis.)
If all diplomats involved were to use that information to further negotiate a treaty, we would certainly be a step further in the fight against climate change through peaceful, scientific diplomacy, experts say. But does this correspond to reality? Not really. Despite existing structures, there still seem to be barriers that create a gap between science and diplomacy. There are some lessons to be learned from this experience that can also be applied to the negotiation of a pandemic preparedness treaty.
How does evidence-based policy-making sit with political decisions?
The experience with the COVID-19 pandemic has shown how quickly new evidence emerges and situations, decisions and measures have to be adapted or revoked. Evidence-based interventions must remain adaptable in the context of health policy.
Experts said that it is not sufficient to actually have policy change in light of the evidence. Policy change essentially does not respond proportionally to the information that is provided to policymakers. And that essentially begs the question of how can the relationship between science and policy be better conceptualized?
The pandemic, like other crises earlier, has shown that if knowledge is not available on time, decisions still need to be made. Therefore, there is a need to build infrastructure to produce knowledge rapidly and relevantly. It is essential to adapt information needs as a function of the risks associated with decisions.
“Typically, we do not need the same level of evidence to advise wearing masks as to recommend vaccines. The latter is riskier and needs more rigorous information. The former is safer and can be recommended as implementing it will also help generate relevant additional evidence,” Stauffer said. He also underlined the need to align research priorities with policy needs.
“Perhaps, only about 10-30% of current research is policy-relevant, it would be impactful to increase this percentage to 30-50%. This would still preserve the independent and exploratory nature of scientific research,” he said.
He also called for decision-making under uncertainty. Adapting research as a function of decision realities and fostering relationships and trust are strategies to ensure that relevant information is produced and used.
He acknowledged that “while scientific knowledge helps, making better decisions is yet another skill.”
“We need policy actors to learn how to acknowledge and handle both uncertainty and complexity. They need to know how to make decisions that can be adapted over time by preserving instead of hindering future decision options. They need to identify trade-offs and avoid paralysis in the face of compromises. The capacity to make decisions under uncertainty is critical. Science will never reduce uncertainty entirely. Therefore, policy actors will have to make decisions in the face of known and unknown unknowns,” Stauffer says.
Science Diplomacy and A New Pandemic Accord:
What is the role of science diplomacy in global health and to what extent can it be applied to current pandemic negotiations? Scientific foundations are absolutely necessary to design meaningful, targeted, and sustainable pandemic preparedness policies. This is therefore not only important for the process of negotiation, but also for actual implementation.
“The COVID-19 crisis has shown both the needs and challenges of undertaking effective science-policy interactions in spite of these divergences. The pandemic treaty being developed in the WHO context offers an opportunity for further political attention on the science-policy interface for pandemic preparedness. Part of being better prepared is about building trust and mutual understanding between scientists and policy actors and imagining mechanisms by which these actors can ultimately align research with decision realities”, Seidler told us.
Stauffer explains in a recent publication, “Evidence-based policymaking processes are cumbersome and often not fit for purpose. Decisions based on systematic reviews require considerable amounts of time to search, filter and synthesize evidence. This process is too slow to react fast and adequately. As an example, the World Health Organisation was forced to adapt and speed up its synthesis processes to be able to recommend evidence-based actions.”
“Evidence-based policies in the form of hard law can constrain mitigation and adaptation. It is helpful to have International Health Regulations based on evidence, but their fixed legal structure constrains their adaptability to new, fast-changing contexts. A legal perspective on evidence-based policy begs the question: how to leverage more soft law, norm-based measures for pandemic preparedness”, Stauffer adds.
In his opinion piece , Stauffer describes the current pandemic situation as an opportunity to build bridges. Especially now at the beginning of the conversation, the opportunity can be seized to strategically bring professionals speaking both languages into the negotiations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body at WHO. So far, it is not clear if and to what extent non-state actors, who are not in official relations with WHO, will have an active role in the negotiations. This underscores the barriers to external stakeholders - such as scientists - described above.
Against this background, the World Health Organization should grasp this momentum to actively use science diplomacy and involve experts who can build bridges between science and international politics in the context of these heated discussions. We will know soon if WHO and its member states will seize this opportunity.
Write to Julia: julia.doetzer@uni-bielefeld.de
POLICY UPDATE:
SECOND SESSION OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING BODY
The second session of the first resumed meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body concluded on Wednesday with a public broadcast at the end of its last meeting. The twenty-minute live broadcast began with the two co-chairs stressing the importance of transparency - much discussed among member states this week. The meeting saw the adoption a Draft Report. It is expected that the negotiations could be more accessible to the public, as some member states are in favour of broadcasting future INB meetings online.
One of the key debates during this meeting revolved around the publicly accessible accreditation process of non-state actors, long demanded by civil society. The list of "other stakeholders" with limited access to negotiations is to remain open for the time being, but stakeholders must be nominated by member states. Further discussions are expected on this.
Further meetings are planned for next week, between 15-17 June. The Bureau of the INB is expected to revise and post a new outline of substantive elements. Member states and "relevant stakeholders" listed under Annex A-D (A/INB/1/7) will have the chance to comment, submit oral and written comments until the 24th of June.
Next week will see member states discuss more substantial elements.
Between June 27 and July 1, a number of Bureau meetings are expected to develop a working draft based on the inputs from stakeholders.The INB hopes to work towards a working draft to be made available by 11 July, a week ahead of its next meeting during 18-22 July.
This week, the discussion on subgroups was deferred. At this juncture, there is no definite date for the next set of public hearings.
Compiled by Julia Dötzer.
Global health is everybody’s business. Help us probe the dynamics where science and politics interface with interests. Support investigative global health journalism
Create your profile
Only paid subscribers can comment on this post
Check your email
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.