|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (Apr25/07) Dear friends and colleagues, The resumed 13th session of the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) on the pandemic agreement is taking place in Geneva from 7-11 April. As the meeting closes today (11 April) a major contentious issue relates to the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System under Article 12 of the negotiation text. We are pleased to share with you the five statements that TWN made. With best wishes, Third World Network Statements by Third World Network (TWN) at the resumed 13th session of the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body on the Pandemic Agreement (7-11 April 2025) 11 April: TWN statement on the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System under Article 12 of the negotiation text Madam Co-chair, Unfortunately, we are disappointed to see the green text in Article 12. It seems INB has forgotten the pain the world endured during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no certainty or guarantee of preferential access to medicines for WHO to support vulnerable populations in paragraphs 7 and 8. Somehow this demand of the people across countries and continents was treated as the interest of developing countries. Despite repeated letters from Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), INB prioritized pharmaceutical companies’ preferences. Even the proposed Paragraph 6 only guarantees a 10% donation. For the remaining 20%, the text suggests “flexibility” in a pandemic emergency - an exceptional event which happens once in decades. Whether big or small, if a PABS (Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System) user is producing essential pandemic-related products, they should be required to provide WHO with at least 20% of supply in a pandemic — this commitment is missing. It is a misconception that PABS is about charity or begging. On the contrary, ABS (access and benefit sharing) is a globally recognized legal tool that upholds the right to benefit from scientific progress – a human right in fact. It is not anti-innovation – it drives it. It balances private and public interest in biodiversity and innovation derived from its (biodiversity) components. A powerful legal instrument, ABS speaks the language of the public interest. To compromise that is a flawed policy choice. Keeping even minimal details of Article 12 to the future, when there could have been much more certainty, is like choosing less efficient outcomes knowingly. Madam Co-chair, CSOs continue to highlight ABS as one of the most effective tools to empower WHO with the resources it needs. Sadly, the green texts fail to deliver this. We remain committed and hope INB does better today and in the upcoming Annex (to the agreement) negotiations. (Note: Green refers to text in the negotiation document that is highlighted with the colour green, indicating initial agreement among the negotiating Member States.) 10 April: TWN statement on One Health/Article 12 Madam Co-Chair, there is no doubt we appreciate your work. Our role here is to point out gaps to make the outcomes better. With this in view, let us make a few remarks. In Article 1, INB should re-examine what it purports to achieve with the definition of the One Health Approach. The current definition reduces a principle rooted in the worldview of living in harmony with nature to a “multi-sectoral and transdisciplinary approach” focused on health interventions. It says what One Health aims for and recognizes — but fails to say what the approach does or must do: address social, environmental, and economic determinants of health, grounded in equity, justice, and fairness. This is critical, as people’s realities differ widely across developed and developing countries. The definition seeks to quote the One Health High-Level Panel — which failed to reach consensus in forums like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Yet, rather than incorporating suggestions from developing countries with centuries of lived experience and practicing one health like Malaysia, Bangladesh, India, and many African states, references to equity and determinants stand removed. In their place: a new phrase — “while contributing to sustainable development” — again from the same panel, funded by few countries in this room. Following the question on the idea of “oneness” from negotiators from Latin America and Africa in 24th Session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA24), the Conference of Parties (COP) to the CBD in its 15th meeting did not welcome the definition of the panel and asked the panel to consider socio-economic inequities. The One Health definition must include Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) between developing countries and developed countries, as well as equity. Otherwise, we request deletion of the definition allowing policy space for Member States to follow their own understanding of holistic approach to health. Madam Co-chair, flowers across the walkway to WHO have bloomed. Flowering plants in Article 12 Paragraph 6 to 8 are still not able to blossom, perhaps the water for the plants there is being diverted to corporate use and flexibility. We wish for the beauty of the great flowers of this land, bring beauty to Article 12 as well. 9 April: TWN statement on technology transfer (Article 11) Madam Co-chair, technology transfer can occur in multiple ways—not only through the transfer of rights or equipment, but also through training, capacity building, or simply sharing or making information publicly available. Crucially, many of these methods do not require cooperation or hand holding from the technology holder. WHO already promotes such diverse forms of technology transfer. For example, WHO’s pharmacopoeia monograph on remdesivir could enable its production through multiple methods. Similarly, initiatives like H-TAP are advancing this mandate. Article 11 rightly reflects this broad understanding, with only paragraph 1(b) referring to actual rights transfer through government licensing. However, the proposed footnote defining Technology Transfer with mutually agreed terms (MAT)—or worse, Voluntary MAT—risks restricting the very practices WHO supports. If adopted, WHO might even need permission from technology holders just to publish a pharmacopoeia monograph. Madam Co-chair, if the pandemic agreement relies on MAT or similar standards, it contradicts this body's core aim: addressing the inequities exposed by COVID-19. Demanding “MAT plus” standards, say VMAT or MAT through an agreed process, worsens the status quo . It undermines equity, no matter how carefully the language is crafted. Finally, Member States already have policy space to use compulsory measures in emergencies. Article 11 should build on that by enabling coordinated international action—especially when technology is not sufficiently diffused or where policy space alone is inadequate. If, instead, INB chooses to limit technology transfer through MAT, it fails in its mandate to design practical measures to enable equitable access in pandemic preparedness and response. On unhindered access, INB should take note it is within the scope of mandate of INB accorded by the WHASS Decision. INB should not shy away from this mandate. On liability management, we also reiterate that liability management for vaccine injuries can only be effective if there is sufficient sharing of regulatory information between authorities. Madam Co-Chair and MS, we wish more strength to you to contribute to a fairer world. (Note: WHASS stands for the Special Session of the world Health Assembly.) 8 April: TWN statement on Article 4 Madam Co-Chair, We see, recognize, and appreciate the hard work of Member States sitting until late night to conclude the WHO Pandemic Agreement. Regarding Article 4, at this stage, we have two requests: First, please give policy space to Member States, since not all elements of Article 4, paragraph 2, are of equal priority to States. Core public health functions should remain at the centre of implementation of the Pandemic Agreement (PA). Paragraph 6 constrains future work of the Conference of Parties relating to mobilization of resources for implementation of Article 4 by linking the paragraph to Articles 9, 11, 13, 19, and 20 – the weakest links in the PA. Most of these other provisions are developed with a view to dealing with health products needed for emergencies post-outbreaks. They are not suitable for application to find resources for Article 4, where actions are to be taken in multiple sectors, according to the priorities of Parties. Thus, please do not constrain proposals from developing countries that sought to empower the Conference of Parties to the WHO Pandemic Agreement to undertake work to develop future mechanisms for facilitating access to resources for implementation of Article 4. Madam Co-Chair, regarding prevention, we want to reiterate something. We can write a treatise on One Health within this PA and write several provisions on prevention, but if we fail to make a commitment to make health products available at the time of outbreaks, and reduce such commitment to options, prevention will remain elusive. Madam Co-Chair, if our memory of going through records of the World Health Assembly in 2004 and 2005 is correct, it was a Member State from the PAHO region who cautioned the 58th session of the Assembly about the absence of access-to-medicines provisions in the IHR 2005 (International Health Regulations). At that time, the Assembly had no time to pay attention. It adopted the IHR 2005 without equitable access to health products. The rest is history – PHEIC after PHEIC – even during the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO stood at the back of the queue to receive health products to address life-and-death situations in developing countries. Keeping this in view, we request the INB to make an effective benefit-sharing provision under Article 12. (Note: PHEIC stands for public health emergency of international concern under the IHR that triggers actions by Parties when declared.) 7 April: TWN statement on Article 12 on the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) Good Morning Co-Chair. We appreciate the (INB) Bureau’s and Member States’ hard work and commitment in seeking legal solutions to the gaps in pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPR). We are now in the final lap of negotiations before WHA78 (78th session of the World Health Assembly). Today, INB has set aside a full day for Article 12. That is a lot of time to resolve two numbers – one in paragraph 6 and one in paragraph 7 – on the set-asides of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics (VTDs) that could be made available to WHO to support developing countries and vulnerable populations. Some argue that donations already exceed the minimum set-asides sought. That is a risky assumption. For Ebola, no treatments were available for nearly two years, despite affected countries’ involvement in R&D – a tragedy exposed by MSF (Médecins sans frontières). For Mpox, Bavarian Nordic has donated just 0.16% of its 10 million-dose production. Africa got only 10% of doses demanded by the Africa CDC. This is the inequity that we hope the INB will erase. There is no more time for more technical inputs. It is time for a political decision. Will the INB empower WHO to stand at the front of the queue for VTDs in future health emergencies? Or will it keep WHO at the back, dependent on donor goodwill? TWN believes everyone here prefers the former. Let us make it simple, direct, and effective. We urge Member States to move beyond historical opposition to VTD set-asides in the PABS and ensure WHO has preferential access – not just during pandemics, but also in PHEICs and pre-PHEIC phases. Ensure licenses are available with WHO to kick-start manufacturing in developing countries, when there is no sufficient supply. These are not options. Thank you Co-Chair. (Note: PHEIC stands for public health emergency of international concern under the IHR that triggers actions by Parties when declared.)
|
||
