No Pandemic Agreement This Year – And Doubt About Feasibility of May 2025 Deadline Pandemic Agreement 06/12/2024 • Kerry Cullinan Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) INB co-chair Precious Matsoso (centre) ends the 12th meeting, flanked by co-chair Anne-Claire Amprou and Dr Tedros. There will be no pandemic agreement by year-end and, with only 10 days of formal talks set aside in 2025, some parties doubt whether an agreement can be reached by the May 2025 deadline. The week-long extended 12th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) made progress, particularly on research and development (Article 9) and financing (Article 20). While disagreement remains on a couple of key obstacles, informal talks will continue alongside the formal talks. Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Director General, suggested at the close of the meeting on Friday evening that delegates consider negotiating on “packages” rather than clause by clause to “break the stalemate”. “When I see what’s left, I believe – and this is honest from my heart – it is not really difficult to conclude in a few days of negotiation, but between now and the next meeting it would be good to think about the issues left and find a middle ground,” said Tedros. Earlier in the day, INB co-chair Anne-Claire Amprou took exception to criticism of the process and lack of progress from some NGO observers. Noting that the nature of multilateral negotiations means finding a “landing zone” that is acceptable to everyone, France’s Amprou said sharply: “I don’t agree when you say that nobody gains anything. I invite everyone – delegations, stakeholders – to look at what we have already achieved. We have achieved a lot.” She stressed that the INB would deliver on its mandate: “We need a pandemic agreement which is meaningful, and it will be.” ‘Not a colouring book’ Amprou’s response came after Medicines Law and Policy commented that while there is some new “green text”, indicating agreement on the draft agreement, “it’s important to remember that the pandemic agreement is not a colouring book”. The European think-tank continued: “Substantive provisions on very difficult issues such as equity and access, transfer of technology, intellectual property and [pathogen] access and benefit-sharing remain largely absent, or are, at best, weak.” Third World Network (TWN) followed, saying: “Every time we hear a new text is green, we are looking to figure out what has been compromised, especially in terms of equity. TWN added that the agreement lacks “a baseline of legal rights and obligations”, and “protects the interest of business, not people’s rights”. Oxfam presented a list of questions and objections on behalf of 26 stakeholders including that member states appeared to be under “extreme pressure” to defer agreement on a pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS) scheme to an annex, the contents of which would be decided on after the pandemic agreement had been signed. The Pandemic Action Network (PAN) and the Panel for Global Health Convention both urged negotiators to keep the momentum going and asked for clarity on the way forward. Rafael Gracia of Pandemic Action Network and Dame Barbara Stocking representing he Panel for Global Health Convention Eloise Todd, PAN’s executive director, told Health Policy Watch after the meeting that while the INB has not reached a conclusion, “there is a more urgent sense of progress around the negotiations which we need to encourage”. Todd called on “high-income countries in particular to dig deep and remember the reason why we need this agreement is because of the deep-seated inequality in the COVID response”. “It is crucial for negotiators to see the bigger picture with these negotiations. The pandemic agreement will serves as an important marker the world’s coordination and cooperation in times of pandemic threats – which we know will become more and more frequent. It’s time to deliver on this vital step forward that will benefit people in every country,” said Todd. However, Spark Street Advisors’ CEO and long-time talks observer Nina Schwalbe was less positive: “They have missed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a difference because national interests prevailed over global solidarity.” Crux of the stalement The stalemate centres on differences between the European Union (EU) and the Africa Group. The EU wants an annex linked to Article 4 (pandemic prevention) that outlines countries’ responsibilities to prevent pandemics. The Africa Group is reluctant to agree to costly responsibilities and it wants an annex related to the operationalising of a system for pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS) in exchange. What the Africa Group wants from PABS is preferential access to any pandemic-related products that are developed from them sharing information about pathogens that could cause pandemics. This is anathema to the pharmaceutical industry, largely represented by the EU and the US. The Africa group is also concerned that a prevention annex could impose costly requirements that they are unable to finance. However, the first beneficiaries of prevention measures are individual countries’ citizens who would be protected by, for example, heightened surveillance of bats that harbour Ebola and Marburg. “These two areas are the make-or-break articles of the negotiations. If we can reach agreement on these, we will make the deal,” co-chair Precious Matsoso noted in an address to scientists recently. Health leaders wanted an early agreement Tedros has long urged delegates to reach agreement sooner rather than later and Dr Jean Kaseya, head of Africa CDC, has also expressed hope for an early agreement. On a recent visit to South Africa, Matsoso noted: “We don’t have six months left to finish negotiations. We only have a couple of days left, precisely because the geopolitical environment is so challenging. There is huge, huge pressure on the talks and we don’t know what the outcome will be.” The elephant in the room is the Donald Trump presidency, largely expected to take an axe to what Team Trump terms “globalism” – virtually anything that puts global good before national interest. Delegates paid tribute to US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto for her positive contribution to the pandemic agreement, as that was her last INB meeting. Further INB meetings are scheduled for February and April, with a completed agreement supposed to be ready to be voted on at the World Health Assembly in May. Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Combat the infodemic in health information and support health policy reporting from the global South. Our growing network of journalists in Africa, Asia, Geneva and New York connect the dots between regional realities and the big global debates, with evidence-based, open access news and analysis. To make a personal or organisational contribution click here on PayPal.