Slow Progress as Schism Continues Between Countries [Update: Pandemic Agreement Talks]

Newsletter Edition #106 [Treaty Talks]

Hi,

Is treaty-making a creative process? May be.

Three years into the process of negotiating a binding agreement to govern pandemics, WHO member states continue to be strait-jacketed in their expectations on such an instrument. This makes “creative solutions” as global health consultants like to say - more difficult. (I wince when I hear such jargon.)

So while possibilities towards consensus exist, it will depend on the creative ways that countries will use to reach that goal. A goal that is still quite a distance away.

Our comprehensive edition today tries to keep up with discussions on a number of the provisions of the draft pandemic agreement, being negotiated in Geneva these days.

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!

Watch out for more updates from us in the coming days.

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 FROM INB11

Slow Progress as Schism Continues Between Countries

By Priti Patnaik

---

Schism continues between countries, as they dig in their heels maintaining their stated positions on the trickiest elements in a new Pandemic Agreement including on surveillance, prevention, technology transfer, research and development, Pathogen Access and Benefits Sharing (PABS) – some of the few provisions in the draft instrument that have been discussed in recent days.

WHO member states continued their deliberations at the 11^th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body meeting that is convening September 9-20 this month in Geneva.

But something has got to give as countries edge towards the end of the current meeting. A number of non-papers including on prevention, technology transfer, PABS, are being proposed to unblock some of the discussions as countries get deeper into negotiations. The bureau also came up with a proposed text on the PABS provision that is being considered by negotiators this week.

The proceedings have seen a marked shift with greater interaction with non-state actors and relevant stakeholders who have had the opportunity to brief member states on some of the provisions being discussed. Sources say that the Bureau has made efforts to regularly share progress on the negotiations. Proceedings continue behind closed doors. (There are no regular structured or informal briefings for the press yet.)

In this story we deal with a few key issues in Article 4&5 (surveillance & prevention, One Health), 9 (R&D), 10 (sustainable production), 11 (technology transfer) and 13 (supply chain). (Article 12 on PABS will be dealt in a subsequent story.)

Recall that collectively provisions on R&D, sustainable production, technology transfer, PABS and supply chain are core elements that seek to go beyond established practices in the gamut of preparatory and response phases during health emergencies, from seeking to attach conditionalities to publicly funded research; to encouraging regional manufacturing; to push for greater commitments to share technology; devising new rules on sharing pathogen information and the resulting benefits; to making new rules on how medical products are procured distributed during emergencies.  (See MSF’s recent detailed commentary on some of these provisions.)

In an earlier story last week, we captured the discussions on the questions of form and legal architecture.

For this story, as before we were onsite at WHO, and spoke with numerous negotiators, experts and officials in the course of these discussions. The analysis is based on the latest text that was shared by the Bureau with countries and non-state actors dated September 16 (published by Knowledge Ecology International). Brackets signify lack of consensus, DEL reads for delete. Country positions were not revealed by the Bureau following a decision by the member states earlier in the year.

Image Credit: Photo by Stanislav Kondratiev, Pexels