TWN Info Service on Health Issues (Feb25/06)
19 February 2025
Third World Network

WHO: Concerns over INB Bureau’s removal of texts from the negotiating draft

19 February, Geneva (TWN) – Iran raised concerns over the Intergovernmental Negotiation Body (INB) Bureau’s deletion of text without strikethrough indication from the negotiating text of the pandemic instrument, leading to a situation where certain provisions appear fully agreed, though there are pending issues. 

(Strikethrough text retains the negotiation record of textual development until there is agreement reached.)

When the INB Co-Chair tabled the current programme of work for adoption, Iran raised its reservations and stated:

“Our understanding is that this draft programme of work contains those elements that are under discussion. As several articles have been marked as green or modified without sufficient inclusive consultative process following the closure of the December meeting, we reserve the right to raise our concerns whenever necessary with an understanding nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

The 13th meeting of the INB tasked to develop the WHO Pandemic Agreement is currently going on at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva, from 17 to 21 February 2025.

Interestingly, the INB Bureau did not respond, but merely thanked Iran for continuing with the adoption of the programme of work.

It is understood that the INB Bureau has made several textual changes to the negotiating draft, post the INB12 meeting in December 2024. However, the negotiating text reflects only the proposed text additions made by the Bureau. It does not reflect the deletions carried out by the Bureau.

When the Bureau deletes text, it is required to show what has been deleted, through a strikethrough indication. In the absence of strikethrough indication, one cannot discern the deleted text from the negotiating text presented for the consideration of the INB13 meeting.

Such a practice can create significant implications for the negotiations. For Instance, in Article 20, such a practice is giving the impression that Article 20 is fully green (i.e. agreed) and not open for further negotiations, whereas in reality negotiations on Article 20 are still pending on one of the paragraphs.

The Bureau removed one contentious paragraph without strikethrough from Article 20, making the text of the provision appear fully green in the negotiating text.

The negotiating text after the conclusion of INB12 in December 2024 contained the following provision in brackets (indicating lack of consensus):

“[2.bis The Parties shall refrain from taking any measures not in accordance with international law that may adversely affect the sustainable and predictable financing of other Parties for the purposes of this Agreement. (DEL / RETAIN)]”.

Iran and several other countries that face unilateral coercive measures have proposed the above paragraph which was removed without consulting them. The proposal was meant to avoid barriers to health financing for the countries under unilateral coercive measures. However, this paragraph now stands as having been removed from Article 20, with no strikethrough indication.

Article 20 in the current negotiating text thus gives an impression that agreement has been reached and there are no more negotiations required for the same. Further, Article 20 does not appear in the programme of work for INB13. There is no time allocated to negotiate Article 20 during this week. Affected by such an approach of the INB Bureau, Iran raised their concerns.

As shown below there are other crucial paragraphs similarly removed from the INB Bureau’s text such as Article 30, but not transparently marked. However, unlike Article 20, these provisions would be opened for discussion, and delegations could still point to missing elements by comparing it with previous text.

As such, the process can mislead the negotiations unless negotiators are fully alert, and in particular jeopardize the participation of the developing countries’ small delegations.

Article 30 - another example

Another critical example is the removal of paragraph 1bis from Article 30.  Article 30 deals with annexes, and paragraph 1bis reads as follows:

“1bis. The Annexes referred to in Articles 4 and 12 shall enter into force upon the entry into force of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.”

Paragraph 1bis was inserted in Article 30 to ensure that development and operationalization of the pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) instrument (Annex referred to in Article 12) is an integral feature of the entry into force of the Pandemic Agreement. This is how the idea of negotiating the Annex after the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement had been proposed to developing countries.

This paragraph is now also removed without strikethrough indication. Without reference to paragraph 1bis, the entry into force of the WHO pandemic instrument will be fully dependent on Article 35, which is fully greened.

Article 35 is on “entry into force” of the pandemic instrument. This Article was greened before there was agreement on developing the PABS Annex at a later stage.

Removing Paragraph 1bis indicates disregard for the proposal that the PABS component and the Pandemic Agreement will enter into force in an integrated manner.

Article 3 - Right to Development similarly missing without marking

In Article 3 paragraph 2 there was reference to “right to development”, which also went missing from the negotiation text post INB12.

At the closure of INB12 the text read as follows:

“1. Full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons, and the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health of every human being, [as well as the right to development] and full respect for non-discrimination, [gender] equality and the protection of [persons or people] in vulnerable situations;”

The words outside the brackets were all greened. However at a later stage when the INB13 started, the text read as follows:

“1. Full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons, and the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health of every human being, and full respect for non-discrimination, [gender] equality and the protection of [those] in vulnerable situations;”

The phrase “as well as the right to development” was removed from Article 3, however text has no indication of the deletion of “as well as right to development”. The text now reads as if the debate is only on the words “gender” and “those”.  

Negotiators who spoke to TWN after the first day of the ongoing INB13 said that the big debate about right to development is still going on.