Anne-Claire Amprou, French Ambassador for Global Health, has replaced Roland Driece of the Netherlands as the co-chair of the World Health Organization (WHO) Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that is hammering out the pandemic agreement.

However, Amprou, who coordinated the French response to COVID-19 and was a member of the international Ebola task force, is interim co-chair pending further discussion in the WHO European region.

New vice-chair Fleur Davis (Australia), joins existing vice-chairs Tovar da Silva Nunes (Brazil), Dr Viroj Tangcharoensathien (Thailand) and Amr Ramadan (Egypt).

The two new representatives bring more much-needed gender balance into the male-dominated leadership of the INB.

Welcoming the two new representatives, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that “consensus over the outstanding issues is possible within a relatively short time, if you prioritise public health over other considerations”.  

“We must always keep the urgency of this generational agreement at the forefront because, as the current outbreak of H5N1 reminds us, the next pandemic may be around the corner,” added Tedros.

He urged delegates to use the two-day meeting to “make the necessary adjustments that will allow you to move towards consensus and reach our shared goal of a pandemic agreement for a safer and more equitable world for all.”

‘Precarious moment’

Describing the global community as being in a “precarious moment” as it awaited the pandemic agreement, Eswatini appealed for equity to remain the focus of the talks to “address inequities that were experienced by most developing countries during the COVID-19 pandemic”.

The Africa Group supports the proposal that the next INB meeting in September focuses on  Article 12, the vexed issue of pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS), added Eswatini, speaking on behalf of the Africa region and Egypt.

Africa wants any decision on PABS to be included in the main agreement, not as a “separate instrument”, said Eswatini, a small, landlocked country in southern Africa.

South Africa later added that PABS “has the potential of unlocking blockages in other areas” so “it is prudent to allocate sufficient time for the PABS system, followed by the other articles, which are all interrelated and crucial for a meaningful PABS system”.

Estwatini also called for shorter, less intense INB meetings, explaining that the marathon sessions of the past were extremely taxing on small delegations.

Ethiopia, South Africa and Indonesia also stressed their preference for the agreement to be sealed by the end of this year via a World Health Assembly (WHA) Special Session in December.

“Let’s work back from that date,” said Ethiopia’s Ambassador Tsegab Kebebew Daka during discussions on the work plan.

This plan proposes an 11th INB meeting from 9-20th September and a 12th meeting from 4-15 November. No negotiations are possible in October as various WHO regions hold their conferences. However, delegates proposed inter-sessional meeting during that month including sessions with experts to make progress.

The deadline for calling the WHA special session to discuss and adopt the pandemic agreement is 15 November.

More important to ‘get it right than do it fast’

US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto cautioned against haste, warning that there was “little time to reach a consensus agreement with many complex issues remaining”.

“It is more important to get it right than to do it fast. In order to be successful, this agreement has to be implementable,” said Hamamoto, who cast doubt on an agreement materialising from only two INB negotiations.

“We have concerns that two formal negotiating sessions will be sufficient to conclude a meaningful pandemic agreement by year end 2024. We are fully committed to trying, but we do not advise pushing critical issues in their entirety off to a future process. 

“To meet a December target, we need to find the right balance of what to include in the pandemic agreement and which details should be deferred to future working groups. The current INB 11 proposal assumes we can reach consensus on at least one article per day, which may be overly ambitious.”

The US proposed focusing on “core issues where additional understanding and alignment is needed regarding fundamental concepts, specifically Article 12, Articles 4 and 5, and the legal framework for proposed protocols or annexes”.

Hamamoto also proposed that talks be fast-tracked by informal working groups on key stumbling blocks, a robust intercessional work between the September and November INB meetings and consultation with experts, scientific institutions, the Quadripartite (the four UN agencies dealing with One Health), and the private sector.

“We need concrete ways to seek expert, technical and legal advice, perhaps through the use of expert advisory groups along the lines used in the ongoing plastics treaty negotiations,” said Hamamoto, adding that the US supports stakeholders being allowed to observe the drafting group. 

IHR overlap?

The European Union’s Americo Zampetti called for the WHO Secretariat to guide the INB on overlaps between the pandemic agreement and the recently agreed International Health Regulations (IHR) to help “cleaning up certain areas in the text”.

The EU, Mexico, Australia, Jamaica and several other countries also voiced support for greater involvement of non-state actors in the talks.

Mexico pointed out that their presence would help to counter disinformation about the pandemic agreement.

The meeting concludes on Wednesday and will have modified the proposed work plan and process.