The director-general of the World Health Organization (W.H.O.), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced on Monday that a final draft of a proposed “pandemic agreement” is only one article away from completion.
The W.H.O. has spent much time in the years following the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic promoting the establishment of a pandemic treaty or other international legal document to govern the behavior of sovereign countries in the event of another similar incident. The document – initially referred to as the “W.H.O. convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response,” or “WHO CA+” because countries could not agree on a name – would describe how countries should share relevant medical intelligence and distribute medical supplies and technology such as vaccines, and how to trace the origin of diseases to contain them.
The W.H.O. is apparently now referring to the document only as the “pandemic agreement,” though it would likely function in countries such as the United States as a treaty, which members of Congress have insisted should require approval from the Senate. American officials have expressed reservations that signing onto such an agreement would damage the ability of American companies to expeditiously develop technology to address new diseases and could make the U.S. government response subordinate to the W.H.O.
Tedros has repeatedly condemned concerns about sovereignty as “misinformation” and claimed that, instead, signing onto the pandemic agreement would expand nations’ sovereign power.
“Far from ceding sovereignty, the agreement actually affirms national sovereignty and national responsibility in its foundational principles,” he claimed in February 2024. “Indeed, the agreement is itself an exercise of sovereignty.”
The group of global diplomats working on the pandemic accord, known formally as the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, concluded an extended work period this weekend that began on Friday and ended on Saturday morning in Geneva. In remarks on Monday, Tedros commended their commitment and announced that they were closer than ever to agreement. Notably, since President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the W.H.O. in January, American negotiators were not present during this round of talks.
Tedros celebrated. “As you know, after a long week and a marathon session on Friday that lasted until Saturday morning, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is closer than ever to delivering on its mandate,” he said.
“Negotiators worked through the night on Friday without any sleep for more than 24 hours non-stop,” he explained. “That is a true reflection of the seriousness Member States give to this process and to the importance of concluding a WHO Pandemic Agreement for adoption at the WHA [World Health Assembly] in a few weeks’ time.”
“All bar one article has been agreed,” he revealed.
The negotiating body is expected to conclude that last article in a working session on Tuesday.
“If Member States are able to overcome their remaining differences – as I believe they will – they will send a strong signal that in these divided and divisive times, countries can still come together to collaborate and find common ground,” Tedros predicted.
Following negotiations this weekend, negotiating body co-chair Claire Amprou said that the proposed treaty now exists “in principle.” Reports indicated that the most contentious issue at the extended drafting session was how to balance the need for rapid distribution of medical supplies and newly developed treatments with protecting intellectual property and the companies developing it.
Concluding the drafting of the agreement is not the last step in its adoption.
The most recent draft is not yet publicly available at press time. The newest edition of the agreement, labeled April 2024, contained multiple provisions mandating that its signatories “promote and otherwise facilitate or incentivize the transfer of technology and know-how for pandemic-related health products.” The countries participating must “encourage research and development institutes and manufacturers, in particular those receiving significant public financing, to forgo or reduce, for a limited duration, royalties” on relevant technology.
The draft also contained a provision to “encourage the holders of relevant patents that received public funding and, where appropriate, other holders of relevant patents for pandemic-related health products, to forgo royalties.”
In addition to those measures, the draft repeatedly addressed issues of little relevance to public health pandemic response, such as “the value and diversity of the culture and knowledge of indigenous peoples,” “climate change,” women’s rights, and the importance of a “diverse workforce.”
The draft also mandated that developed states share their resources with poorer countries. The provision did not address the fact that many states with weak public health sectors have simply chosen not to invest in their people, instead funneling money into international terrorism, such as Iran; illegal weapons programs, such as North Korea; or the personal wealth of their leaders, a common situation under many impoverished regimes.
“During a pandemic, each Party in a position to do so shall, within its available resources and subject to applicable laws, set aside a portion of its total procurement,” the text read, “of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines in a timely manner for use in countries facing challenges in meeting public health needs and demand.”
W.H.O. member states will meet at the World Health Assembly in May, an annual summit to discuss global health issues, and are expected to vote on the draft or any amendments.
