|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (Nov23/04) Geneva, 6 November (K M Gopakumar) – In a letter addressed to the Co-Chairs of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) on the pandemic instrument, nearly 70 civil society organisations (CSO) demanded a fair negotiating process to ensure a balanced negotiating text to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and Response. The letter was sent on 3rd November against the background of the 7th meeting of the INB, which is to take place 6-10 November at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva. The CSO letter states: “We strongly call upon the Bureau to ensure a fair process, whereby WHO Member States can include their textual suggestions to the draft negotiating text prior to the starting of negotiations. We also ask that proposals from developing countries not be moved to informal sessions, but dealt with in formal sessions, as has happened from June to September 2023”. The letter expresses the concern that the draft negotiating text fails to address the structural reason behind the inequity in the health emergency regime. According to the letter, “We are deeply troubled by the lack of consideration of the structural issues that underline equity and the stark disregard of obligations to address the difference in capabilities of nations, particularly developing countries, for the prevention, preparedness and response to pandemics (PPR)”. The letter further underlines the need for addressing equity and stress that the pandemic instrument must contain provisions which ensure a sustainable, prompt, predictable and affordable supply of pandemic-related health products to all countries irrespective of their financial or technological capabilities. Yet, the provisions tabled by developing countries to bridge the inequity gap around publicly funded research, access and benefit sharing, equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities, have either been scrapped, diluted or have had conditionalities added that excuse inaction on the part of Global North countries”. CSOs that signed the letter include: Access IBSA, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), Global Advocacy for HIV Prevention (AVAC), Health Action International (HAI), Health GAP, Health Global Access Project, International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC), Oxfam International, Asociación de Residentes de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública (ARES MPSP), Bangladesh Nari Sramik Kendra (Association of Women Workers of Bangladesh), Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association (ABIA), People’s Health Movement(PHM), Public Citizen, Society for International Development (SID), Third World Network (TWN, Public Eye), Indonesia for Global Justice. The full letter with signatories initiated by Feminists for a People’s Vaccine is available here: https://t.co/9NmNsIeYF8 Medicine Sans Frontiers (MSF) briefing paper A briefing paper released by MSF acknowledges that though there is improvement in the text many shortcomings still remain. The briefing paper states that “several shortcomings remain, which could impede the effectiveness of the final outcome of the negotiation in truly ensuring and enabling equity of access to lifesaving medical products, and in changing the deficiencies in PPR governance and accountability that have characterised past outbreaks. These include, but are not limited to, insufficiencies in the clarity and scope of the definitions of “pandemic” and “pandemic-related products”; under recognition of needs of people in humanitarian settings; a continued reliance on voluntary measures in place of obligations for member states concerning transparency, transfer of technology, and know-how; lack of explicit obligations on attaching enforceable access conditions to publicly funded R&D; and lack of prohibitions on detrimental liability and indemnity clauses in purchase and donation agreements.”. The briefing paper makes suggestions on various articles in the draft negotiating text. On equitable access provisions contained in Article 9-13, MSF points out that it lacks sufficient considerations on access and equity. It proposes to incorporate provision on benefit sharing of R&D. Further, on technology transfer clauses, MSF points out that voluntary licenses based and mutually agreed terms as the basis for technology transfer are insufficient to address the issue. Panel for Global Health Convention submission In its submission to the INB the Panel for Global Health Convention remarks: “What is being required of countries is prevention (One Health), preparedness, surveillance, R&D, supply chains and logistics is considerable. We are concerned that even with financing (currently not available), the necessary commitment may be overwhelming for low and lower middle income countries.” Further it also stated that “Even graded domestic commitments are going to be difficult for LMICs (low and middle income countries) and are only likely to be achieved if financing is available through Debt Restructuring and Relief. All this requires substantial engagement across the world including, for example, G20, regional organizations and beyond”.+
|
||
