|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (Jan25/01) Full Version of Joint-Statement of 32 CSOs For Resumed Session of 12th Meeting of WHO Intergovernmental Negotiation Body on a pandemic agreement (INB)[1] held in WHO, Geneva (2 to 6 December 2024) This is a statement on behalf of 32 CSOs across WHO regions, and with 8 or more participating in this meeting, either online or in person. As CSOs, we are usually delighted to see more text getting greened—indicating progress towards a meaningful instrument with effective measures to protect public health and avoid past tragedies. However, this time, there is no excitement. Many diplomats tell us this will be a hollow treaty, with the current text resembling a “green cloth with big holes.” We have several critical questions for Member States, and we expect their responses: Article 4: What’s new or impactful? While some define this article as a priority, they avoid negotiating meaningful measures, opting for vague future processes. Preventing outbreaks like Mpox, and ensuring they do not escalate into PHEICS or pandemics, requires urgent and practical measures, not abstract commitments to future negotiations. Article 12: Many Members have shown willingness to negotiate substantively PABS throughout the INB process. Yet, they face extreme pressure to defer PABS discussions to a future annex. Why not now, given its centrality to the instrument? If not now, when? Article 9: What protections does it guarantee to countries during emergencies, apart from exposing their populations to clinical trials with uncertain benefits? Article 10: How will it strengthen manufacturing and production diversification without commitments to share technology, financing, or removing IP barriers? Are we aiming to limit WHO’s role under IHR 2005 - the only binding instrument on health emergencies? Article 11: What remains of this article? How does it improve access to technologies? Why is it not asking Parties to improve IP laws on flexibilities for public health? The reluctance to agree to a peace clause in IP laws is detrimental. Article 13: Why delay finalizing the Global Supply Chain Network’s basic structure and functions, which are not contested elements? Article 19: Where is the obligation for Parties with resources and capacities to support those with limited capacities? What happened to the promise to reflect the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities without using the phrase? Article 20: Does it generate a clear obligation to provide funds for sustainable implementation of the instrument, pandemic PPR and core health systems strengthening? Or is it only a call for project funding driven by private actors? Even in a framework convention, a baseline of legal rights and obligations is essential for the instrument to function. The current draft shows no such baseline. Instead, it protects the interests of pharmaceutical and digital companies, not the people’s rights or globally shared interests. We had hoped that negotiating a public health instrument for equity at WHO would yield better outcomes than what we witnessed at the WTO during the pandemic. You still have the opportunity to be on the right side of history. We believe you can create a legally binding pandemic instrument that provides real protection for everyone, regardless of who or where they are. The world needs an instrument you can be proud of, not just a photo opportunity post-COVID-19. The possibility is in your hands. Endorsements
[1] Actual Delivery of the statement during the session has been adjusted for meeting time requirements. At the time of delivery, only 26 Organisations had recorded their support. While another 6 organisations endorsed the statement afterwards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
