Some Countries May Push For More Time To Conclude Negotiations For The Pandemic Accord; First Draft Likely By Mid-October
Some Countries May Push For More Time To Conclude Negotiations For The Pandemic Accord; First Draft Likely By Mid-October
Newsletter Edition #41 [Treaty Talks]
Hi,
Journalism tries to capture what has happened. But not only. A part of our responsibilities, as reporters is to also pick up signals on what is likely to transpire, based on information from credible sources.
In today’s story, we report about a few countries feeling the need for an extension of the timeline to conclude the negotiations for a pandemic accord. While this has not been formally discussed or decided yet, it is for the first time we notice that some countries are giving a serious consideration to the idea of asking for more time. Read on.
We hope you find our update from the INB Drafting Group meeting this week useful. Write to us if you have suggestions on issues we must report on.
If you find our work valuable, become a paying subscriber. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive. Help us in raising important questions, and in keeping an ear to the ground. Readers paying for our work helps us meet our costs.
Thank you for reading.
Until later.
Best,
Priti
Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com or genevahealthfiles@protonmail.com; Follow us on Twitter: @filesgeneva
STORY OF THE WEEK
Some Countries May Push For More Time To Conclude Negotiations For The Pandemic Accord; First Draft Likely By Mid-October
It is becoming increasingly clear that WHO member states may push for more time in order to conclude the negotiations towards a new Pandemic Accord. While this has not been formally discussed or decided yet, a number of diplomats in Geneva indicated this week that an extension will be inevitable in order to come up with a meaningful instrument.
Speaking on the sidelines of a drafting group meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, several diplomats suggested that sooner than later, the decision to seek for more time will need to be addressed in the coming weeks. But countries are hesitant to be the first ones to volunteer to ask for more time, afraid of being seen as sabotaging the process.
In the last few months of reporting, this is the first time that there has been perceptible shift in the way countries talk - albeit privately - on the need for more time citing concerns around coming up with substantial provisions to make a new Pandemic instrument more effective.
It is also learned that WHO DG Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continues to push for the May 2024 deadline although requests for extending the deadline have been broached with him, diplomatic sources told us this week.
INB Bureau officials clarified to us that countries have reaffirmed their commitment to the May 2024 deadline.
There will be several implications for process and provisions if the deadline will eventually be extended.
In this story we bring you the some elements of the state of play at the INB drafting group meeting that took place in Geneva this week during 4th-6th September.
Countries continued to discuss the following provisions from the Bureau’s text informally: Article 9 (Research and development), Article 12 (Access and benefit-sharing), Article 13 (Supply chain and logistics), Articles 4 (Pandemic prevention and public health surveillance) and 5 (Strengthening pandemic prevention and preparedness through a One Health approach); Article 11 (Co-development and transfer of technology and know-how).
Several diplomats were lackluster about the potential outcomes from such informals. Many reiterated the “circular” nature of these discussions with effectively no progress made. “We gave this a try, but frankly this kind of informal discussions have not really helped. We must try something different than merely talking about provisions. All of this could have happened in formal sessions as well,” a diplomat from a large developing country said.
But others including from other developing countries, appreciated these sessions that helped them respond to questions from other countries on certain provisions. “These informals showed that there is rising interest in some of our proposals. So I think we have found these to be helpful”, a developing country delegate from Asia said.
It is understood that the INB was considering that limiting additional informal discussions on the provisions beyond September 22 – the date for the next INB meeting later this month. The idea of the informals was to bring countries closer from their vastly divergent positions on some issues and for the assigned co-facilitators to prod the discussions further.
Reports from the co-facilitators will contribute to the development of a potential first draft by the INB Bureau, in addition to building over previous consultations and proposals already submitted by countries, sources familiar with the process said. It is learned that there will be nearly five informal sessions over the next few weeks, that will continue to treat the topics currently being discussed.
The following countries are co-facilitators for the informal sessions:
Art. 9 [R&D]: Mexico and Norway
Art. 12 [ABS]: Australia and Ethiopia
Art. 13 [Supply Chain]: Indonesia and Pakistan
Article 4 [Pandemic prevention and public health surveillance] and Article 5 [Strengthening pandemic prevention and preparedness through a One Health approach]: India, United Republic of Tanzania and the United Kingdom
Article 11 [Co-development and transfer of technology and know-how]: Colombia, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia.
I. PROCESS: FIRST DRAFT BY OCTOBER 16, 2023
At the meeting, the INB Bureau is understood to have suggested a way forward.
According to text of such a proposal seen by Geneva Health Files, the Bureau suggested the following:
“1. Development of negotiating text of a draft pandemic agreement - The INB reaffirms the importance of submitting a legally binding international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response to the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, in line with the INB’s mandate from the Health Assembly.
- The INB Bureau will circulate to the INB a negotiating text of a draft agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (the Pandemic Agreement) by 16 October (first an unedited English version and the translated versions by 30 October 2023), based on the discussions of the INB from its fourth, fifth, and sixth meetings, as well as the informal consultations, including the reports of the Co-Facilitators of those consultations.”
The Bureau also suggested that the seventh meeting of the INB will be spread across two separate sessions - November (6-10) and December (4-6) “to allow the presentation of the draft Pandemic Agreement and for INB Members and relevant stakeholders to exchange views.”
Two more rounds of meetings for 2024 are as follows: Eighth Meeting (19 February – 1 March) and Ninth Meeting (18 – 29 March) 2024.
IS ADDITIONAL TIME NECESSARY?
For some of countries in favour of buying additional time to conclude the negotiations, the motivations appear largely to have “meaningful” provisions instead of an instrument that merely ticks the boxes on certain issues, diplomats said.
“We want to have concrete provisions on matters say, on access and benefits sharing, for example. There is no point is having a framework convention by May 2024, if it does not have some solid provisions to address equity”, a developing country diplomat said. The amount of additional time necessary will depend on the substance of the provisions, the diplomat added.
For countries including in the Africa Region, and for many in Asia, having an additional protocol on ABS that might follow subsequently, does not appear to be a strategy they would be comfortable with.
To be sure, for numerous countries meeting the May 2024 deadline is a political priority. So although some recent media reports suggest that there is no interest in the pandemic treaty discussions, in Geneva it appears countries continue to be committed to these negotiations. This is even as they may seek additional time.
“We need some additional time to conduct the negotiations well, not to discuss more substance,” a developed country diplomat also said.
As we mentioned previously, concluding these negotiations in time for May 2024 is an ostensible imperative given the political uncertainties and unpredictable commitment to a Pandemic Accord in many capitals around the world.
If indeed countries get more time to negotiate the Pandemic Accord, it could also have implications for the second track of the process on the amendments to the IHR, that are linked to the deliverables at the INB. Countries will look to trade off on various matters across these two tracks.
II. SUBSTANTIVE ELEMENTS: A MÉLANGE OF PROVISIONS?
Countries have been discussing a range of issues in the informals sessions for the last few months including on research and development, technology transfer, pathogens access and benefits sharing supply chain networks, and on pandemic prevention and public health surveillance, and One Health.
ABS Vs Tiered Pricing?
Diplomats indicate that some of these discussions have been more difficult than the others. According to some, there is a perception, for example, that on matters of ABS, “there is not a lot of openness on the part of developed countries to consider concrete benefits sharing demands from developing countries,” one diplomat told us. To be sure, there is greater willingness in general, to find out how information can be shared, sources said.
Some note that there is also what is being characterised as “a deliberate confusion” on treating ABS matters with that of access to medical countermeasures by some blocs. Diplomats insist that these are two different and separate categories, and that they cannot be conflated together.
Several developing country officials, seem to share the view that tiered pricing of medical countermeasures (as proposed by the EU, for example) cannot be treated as an intended benefit as a part of a ABS mechanism. While in general, that can be pursued as a pricing strategy, but it does not have to be a part of the ABS, they say.
Also revealing was the manner in which such suggestions have been made, they say. Some developing country diplomats seemed wary of what they see as high-handedness couched in charitable terms by developed member states – a dynamic that played over and over again in the response to COVID-19.
In addition, not all developed countries are in favor of committing to negotiating tiered pricing with manufacturers in order to cater to the needs of developing countries, sources said.
ABS in an Interim Countermeasures Platform?
With respect to WHO’s proposed interim medical countermeasures platform, some countries are keen on introducing an interim ABS mechanism in the context of this platform – something that has not featured so far in the discussions on this. As we have reported earlier there has been reluctance on addressing IP and ABS issues in such an interim mechanism.
Carving out procurement out of Supply Chain Network?
In the discussions on the supply chain network (Art.13 Bureau’s text), some noted efforts by a few developed countries to not address procurement matters in a pandemic accord (in the context of Article 13). But the timing for such a move could not have come at a worse time. Just last week, revelations by South Africa-based legal watch dog Health Justice Initiative, showed the massive failures of procurement practices during COVID-19. (See: Analysis finds that Big Pharma held South Africa to ransom over COVID-19 vaccines.)
Resistance To Changing Status Quo On R&D And Tech Transfer Obligations
Sources suggested that there has also been resistance to introduce terms and conditions attached to public funding for research and development (Art. 9, Bureau’s text), although developed countries such as the U.S. have adopted such policy measures domestically.
(Also see a recent piece in The Lancet: From private incentives to public health need: rethinking research and development for pandemic preparedness)
Countries also did not make headway in narrowing divergences on matters of tech transfer as discussed in Art. 11 of the Bureau’s text, sources said. As we reported earlier, there continues to be a strong emphasis, by developed countries to push for tech transfer on voluntary terms only.
During the TRIPS Waiver discussions at the WTO, over two years, developed countries had argued that suspension of IP rules would not boost manufacturing of medical products and that technology transfer was key to diversify local and regional manufacturing. At WHO, however, there is reluctance to articulate obligations that would make tech transfer obligatory.
While the equity considerations characterised by the provisions mentioned above are being picked apart and questioned, developed countries are clear and determined to push on matters on PPR and One Health, several diplomats noted.
POTENTIAL AREAS OF TRADE OFFS BETWEEN PROVISIONS
While it is simply too early to tell where the chips will fall, there are some emerging indications on areas of potential compromise and trade offs across issues in the context of these discussions.
We reported earlier this week that a for few developing countries, walking away from strong language that dilutes intellectual property protection during public health emergencies, could potentially be an option, in return for an effective ABS mechanism that promises them resources and timely access to medical countermeasures.
That some countries are already suggesting areas of compromise, even at these relatively early stages of the discussions, at a time when actual negotiations are yet to begin, suggests the lack of political will to follow through on some of these issues – not an insignificant change even from say, a year ago.
In simplistic terms, matters of surveillance, access to information, and one health are some of the priorities for many developed countries. For developing countries, a strong set of provisions on access and benefits sharing, and access to medical countermeasures are key.
Some diplomats suggest possible trade offs between ABS and One Health provisions, for example. “If a protocol approach for ABS is pushed by developed countries, we can also treat One Health matters in a subsequent protocol, since all countries will need to put systems in place to implement One Health related commitments,” one developing country delegate from Asia suggested.
More discussions will follow in the upcoming informals in the coming days. But diplomats expect the action to commence when a negotiating text or a first draft is brought forward by the Bureau in mid-October.
“We expect to do some legal scrubbing of the text presented by the Bureau, before we take it up for negotiations in the meetings in November and December,” one developing country diplomat said.
See previous updates here:
[July 23] Formal Vs Informal Sessions: The Politics to Get Provisions In or Out?
Global health is everybody’s business. Help us probe the dynamics where science and politics interface with interests. Support investigative global health journalism.