Negotiations in Geneva on the finalisation of the pandemic prevention agreement have been underway since Monday, reports "Voice of America". The portal adds that fresh outbreaks of smallpox, Marburg and avian influenza viruses indicate "the urgent request to scope an agreement not to repeat fatal COVID-19 errors".
It would be agreed within the next 15 days. The negotiators agreed to postpone discussions on the most disputed points: sharing cognition and equal access to medical progress, at the end. More importantly, during the COP16 negotiations in Colombia on biodiversity, which provided for akin mechanisms of response, the "consensus" could not be reached.
The head of WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus urges the swift conclusion of the agreement. He pointed out that “time is not our friend.” COVID is inactive circulating. Smallpox monkeys are a global wellness emergency. We have an outbreak of the Marburg virus and a virus of avian influenza is spreading. The next pandemic won't wait. “The head of the planet wellness Organization commented.
In December 2021, following the alleged COVID-19 pandemic, 194 WHO associate countries agreed to enter into an agreement on preventing preparedness and consequence to the pandemic.
In addition, negotiators are expected to mobilise a fresh strain of monkey smallpox to rapidly agree on the content of the fresh global agreement, which attacks mainly men surviving with men, Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda and the spread of avian influenza (H5N1 virus).
During the two-year negotiations, most of the 37 articles of the draft agreement were agreed. There were 11 rounds of negotiations. Problems have proved to be issues of access by researchers from different countries to medical research, to pathogens and products to combat pandemics, specified as vaccines or testing, and sharing the benefits of developing vaccines, etc.
Countries from the global South indicate that rich countries from the North want to safe profits for their pharmaceutical manufacture and, in the event of a real pandemic, leave them alone as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The global Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations demands that an agreement be concluded that "allows the private sector to innovate". The Federation is not willing to share cognition and transfer technology.
The group of countries that represent Malaysia (Equity Group) demands that at least 20% of the production of vaccines, tests and medicines be transferred to developing countries in real time.
Tanzania, on behalf of 48 African countries, has stated that it cannot "accept a non-capital agreement".
The Indonesian negotiator stressed that the agreement in its present form is unacceptable.
China insisted not to give in to the force of time, but to focus on the "quality" of the agreement. In turn, Germany calls for velocity up talks to “focus on what is achievable”.
In September this year, the eleventh circular of talks between the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) was held, which the planet wellness Assembly set up almost 3 years ago to negociate the WHO pandemic agreement. The draft text developed during INB11 focused on access to vaccines and another wellness products. associate States have not achieved a "consensus" on many provisions of the anti-pandemic agreement, including definitions of crucial terms and concepts. Most of the commitments agreed by the negotiators do not have a "transformation character". The most hard elements of the agreement are to be negotiated at the very end.
It is highly likely that countries will adopt a "drained" version of the agreement and that only any countries, after further negotiations on disputed matters, will opt for more stringent annexes to the agreement.
The alleged COVID-19 pandemic was an excuse to draw up a draft global agreement that would impose a circumstantial consequence to future pandemics on countries. In 2021, the planet wellness Assembly set up an INB to negociate "the WHO Convention, an agreement or another global instrument on prevention, preparedness and consequence to the pandemic", and submit results for consideration by the Assembly in May 2024. However, 9 negotiating rounds did not bring “consensus”. The mandate of INB was so extended for a year. In July, INB10 focused on how extended negotiations were conducted. Despite the “larger diplomatic space”, the September INB11 circular did not produce the desired result.
The INB not only had to look at the proposals of the WHO associate States, but at the same time to take action to amend the global wellness Regulations (IHR). In June, the planet wellness Assembly adopted amendments on IHR.
The biggest problem that has occurred since the beginning of negotiations and remains unresolved is equality and solidarity in sharing knowledge, vaccines and medical products.
There is besides no agreement on mechanisms to strengthen the implementation and compliance with the anti-pandemic agreement obligations.
Currently, the draft knowing is divided into 2 parts: the alleged solid pandemic agreement and the PABS Instrument. The second benefit-sharing instrument would be binding only on those parties to the agreement that will explicitly accept it.
What is peculiarly worrying is the accomplishment of a preliminary surveillance agreement through the 1 wellness approach which recognises the interlinking of human, animal and environmental wellness to prevent, prepare and respond to pandemics. The institutionalisation of this approach under the Treaty is seen as a key step towards addressing multifaceted drivers of pandemics. In practice, however, this means imposing a number of environmental restrictions, restrictions on agriculture, animal husbandry and even trade under the pretext of wellness protection.
The anti-pandemic agreement is the first effort to integrate the "One Health" approach into a binding global legal instrument. This approach is embedded in various articles of the treaty. The preamble to the draft agreement of 27 May 2024 confirms the importance of multisectoral cooperation at all levels to defend human health, with peculiar emphasis on the above-mentioned approach. The recitals supply guidance on the explanation and implementation of the Treaty.
Article 4 of the Agreement requires countries not only to prepare plans to prevent pandemics, with a peculiar emphasis on the ‘One Health’ approach, requiring not only measures to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases between animals and humans, to supervise vector-borne diseases and to address the issue of antimicrobial opposition (AMR), but besides the thought that environmental, climatic and anthropogenic factors must be taken into account in pandemic prevention strategies.
Article 5 deals with the operationalisation of the "One Health" approach in the context of prevention, preparedness and consequence to pandemics, requiring a coordinated approach that recognises the links between human, animal and environmental health. During the negotiations with Article 5(4), a previously proposed separate legally binding instrument to full operate the ‘One Health’ approach was removed, but Article 4(3) was extended to include a provision on a separate annex or instrument developed by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to take account of the operational dimensions of the ‘One Health’ approach.
It is crucial to realise that the operationalisation of the "One Health" approach requires close cooperation by the Minister of wellness with ministers of another ministries, peculiarly agriculture, the environment and trade, which frequently go beyond the scope of wellness ministries. Therefore, negotiators are considering expanding WHO powers. The "One Health" approach was considered a "transformative" holistic approach to increase the scope of the global board.
The WHO regrets that the commitments agreed by the States are "but weak or subject to available government resources, national rules and applicable global law". Moreover, "the draft text does not reflect a consensus on the proposed provisions that would strengthen the prevention, surveillance and one-health commitments by developing a separate instrument, contrasting with the support received by the PABS strategy".
In the end, the agreement would be concluded in May 2025 unless the possible administration of Donald Trump thwarted the WHO's plans. The Republicans object to the agreement. The WHO hopes that the agreement would not should be put to the vote in the Senate, but the constitutional powers of the president would allow, for example, Harris to oblige the United States to comply with the anti-pandemic agreement, as president Barack Obama did in the case of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. However, specified a decision could make problems for the administration regarding the powers of the legislature to accept budgets, government and appointment of ambassadors.
Source: voanews.com, thinkglobalhealth.org, oneill.law.georgetown.edu
AS
