As delegates at this week’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) worked to nail down a day-by-day agenda for negotiating a pandemic agreement for the next few months, it appears increasingly unlikely that the talks will be concluded by year-end. 

The detailed work plan – an indication that the Bureau has heard criticism that it has given member states too little notice in the past – underscores that there is so much to do in so little time.

As US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto noted on the first day of the meeting, the work proposal for the next INB meeting in September “assumes we can reach consensus on at least one article per day, which may be overly ambitious”.

Delegates have also resolved to include consultation with experts as part of the process. This is high time, given that the structures and processes they agree on should be workable for frontline pandemic ‘responders’: scientists studying pathogens, pharmaceutical companies making medicines, health workers and government officials trying to contain outbreaks. But it will mean more time is needed.

New co-chair Anne-Claire Amprou also told delegates on Wednesday that they would need to decide by 11 November – not 15th, as assumed the previous day – if there was sufficient agreement to call a World Health Assembly (HWA) special session in December to adopt a pandemic agreement.

The US wants a “stocktake” by the end of the next INB meeting on 20 September to see how realistic this is, while the Bureau proposed such a stocktake at the INB meeting in early November.

Debate over experts and stakeholders

Delegates were divided on which experts should be consulted. Several countries – including China, Russia and Nigeria – proposed including only those in official relations with the WHO in terms of its Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA)

Others, such as Colombia, wanted more diversity. Nonetheless, countries have until 26 July to submit their proposals on experts to the Bureau.

The INB circled around whether to allow groups with official stakeholders status to sit in on closed drafting sessions. Initially, it appeared stakeholders would be allowed into closed meetings as observers, but by the end of the meeting, delegates settled on closed talks and daily information sessions at the start of each day with stakeholders.

This prompted the European Union’s Americo Zampetti to comment that such sessions should not simply serve as information giving but also solicit the inputs and opinions of the stakeholders, which range from patient advocacy organisations to pharmacuetical companies.

WHO Assistant Director General Mike Ryan stressed at the close of the INB that political agreement was essential and appealed to delegates not to become mired in technical issues and lose the momentum they had gained by the end of the talks in May.

“I would just say to you as negotiators, to separate what is technical from what is ultimately political, and not to delve too far back into technical discussions,” said Ryan.

“A better understanding of the technical issue will not resolve political issues,” he stressed.

“Do not look for answers to what are essentially political trust and other issues in the land of technical explanation. You will find some answers and some reassurance there, but you will not find resolution of what are essentially political issues

Ryan warned that the world’s biome is becoming more volatile and unpredictable, making other pandemics more likely.

“The pandemic agreement will not itself stop the next pandemic. The pandemic agreement will not in itself directly save lives, but without a pandemic agreement, the chaos, the lack of coherence, the lack of equity, the lack of efficiency that we had in the last pandemic will continue and probably increase giving our given our geopolitical differences.

“So this is not an academic exercise. It’s not even a political exercise. This is an exercise in saving human lives. And I just hope that that energy you had when you finished the last time, the disappointment you put to the side, and the commitment to get this done as quickly as possible, is still there.”

The next INB meeting will be from 9-20 September, with further sessions set for November and December – as well as February and April if agreement is not reached in November.