Negotiators working to nail down the pandemic agreement have offered assurances that they can meet the May deadline – for the sake of global security and to restore faith in multilateralism.

Despite only five formal days of talks remaining in April, Pakistan’s Umair Khalid said his country believes there is enough time to clinch the agreement. 

“I don’t think any treaty is negotiated and agreed within a 9am-to-6pm, Monday to Friday setting. So you always have to put in some extra hours, and we have been doing that, and  we’ll continue to do that,” Khalid told a gathering of civil society groups meeting in Geneva during lunchtime on Friday.

“We will use March, we will use April, and we will use all the time that we have.”

India’s Dr Pradeep Khasnobis said that talks “are moving forward” and that “some of those very tough articles, at least have some kind of a landing zone”. 

Eswatini, speaking for the African region, Egypt and Sudan in the closing session, described the week’s talks as “constructive”.

“While we acknowledge concerns about the moderate pace, we are optimistic that the remaining issues, though critical, are manageable,” said Eswatini. 

“We must prepare to conclude our discussions in the five days allocated for the month of April, and we thank the Bureau for proposing additional discussions to address these gaps. We are ready to burn the midnight oils.”

The Philippines, speaking for a 11 diverse countries including Brazil, Canada and the UK, stressed the importance of reaching agreement to restore faith in multilateralism.

“Given the increased challenges facing this organisation, and multilateralism itself, there is a need to demonstrate that countries can indeed come together to solve common problems. We did this in May when we amended the International Health Regulations. This year, we need to adopt the WHO Pandemic Agreement,” said the Philippines, adding that member states managed to make “incremental improvements” to the text “by really listening to one another”.

“We have sat together in this room too many times over the last three years to not have a decent understanding of each other’s positions. We all have some sense of what the consensus text should look like,” id added.

“Let us finish what we have started. Adopting a meaningful Pandemic Agreement will be a win for all of us. The conclusion of the pandemic agereement in May will be a testimony to the world of our commitment to global health and of the continuing relevance of WHO in a time of major political challenges.”

Colombia’s Maria Tenorio Quintero told the civil society gathering that meeting the May deadline would take “extra effort”, and appealed to civil society to help raise public awareness about the positive impact that the agreement could have.

Norway’s Eirik Bakka stressed that the draft agreement “is not an empty shell, and there are important elements that are already agreed to bring it to the finishing line”.

‘Use every opportunity to find common ground’

Joining the closing session, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyessus, World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General, said that the 13th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) had made progress – but “maybe not as much as you would have hoped”.

“As you move to finalize the pandemic agreement in time for the World Health Assembly, you have one week of formal negotiations left. 

“But you’re so close, closer than you think. You’re on the cusp of making history. This agreement should not fail on a word; it should not fail on a comma and it should not fail on a percentage.

 “History will not forgive us if we fail to deliver on the mandate the world needs, and a sign that multilateralism still works. Reaching a WHO pandemic agreement in the current geopolitical environment is a sign of hope.”

Tedros concluded with two messages: “We believe you can do it” and “Use every opportunity during the intercessional period to come closer together towards finding common ground.”

Civil society anxiety

Civil society organisations following the pandemic agreement negotiations over the past three years are anxious that it won’t be completed by May – and that impetus for the initiative will fizzle and further undermine multilateralism.

A sombre group of over 75 people met in person and online in Geneva over lunch on Friday to express frustration at the slow pace of talks over the past five days. 

With only five official negotiating days remaining – 7-11 April – many complex parts of the agreement are not agreed. The group also raised concerns about provisions being watered down of provisions, particularly on technology transfer and intellectual property, and the absence of clauses on prevention.

Knowledge Ecology International’s Jamie Love expressed disappointment over “the lowering of the ambitions on the initial versions of the text and watering down of provisions”.

He also raised that it may suit some parties, particularly the European Union, not to have an  agreement in May given the “rise of the anti vaxxers and right-wing populism”.

Ellen ‘t Hoen of Medicines Law and Policy described reaching agreement as “crucial now in the current political context and the huge global health crisis caused by the United States withdrawal of aid and European countries slashing their aid budgets”.

“This makes the need for having a signal that multilateralism still works even more important than in the earlier days of the pandemic. This total lack of international solidarity is of huge concern.”

Meanwhile, Four Paws’ Nina Jamal said member states seemed to accept the importance of the agreement for multilateralism

However, Jamal added that pandemic prevention offers the best chance to protect people in countries with weak health systems.

“This is the deepest level of equity that we can achieve. And we are disappointed because a lot of countries who  support prevention and are taking action nationally on prevention with a One Health approach are not being vocal in the negotiations because they think if they talk about prevention, they’re disadvantaging their negotiating position for medical countermeasures, preparedness and response.”