For the first time, an update was given on 13 October in the European Parliament on the negotiation of the World Health Organization (WHO) international Agreement or Treaty for the Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Future Pandemics, promoted by EU policy makers and most MEPs (see EUROPE 12842/2).
Roland Driece from the Netherlands, a member of the EU’s vaccine procurement team and co-chair, with South Africa, of the intergovernmental negotiating panel for this new WHO instrument, was heard by MEPs on the Special Committee on the Covid-19 pandemic (COVI), following the CEO of GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance (see EUROPE 13042/27).
He indicated that the framework of the future instrument was ready and that in December the “most difficult phase” would begin: negotiating with 193 countries to flesh out this framework.
“We want to ensure that all countries have equal access to countermeasures” and “that in the event of an emergency, intellectual property rights are not an obstacle. In return, we want the sharing of genomic sequencing” of viruses, which “requires trust” from countries.
According to him, all countries agree that “the Treaty contains binding elements and that is a very good thing”, but he is not under any illusions. “It will have to be agreed by all 193 countries and then we will have to adopt it at national level and respect it. We have to finish in May 2024. That’s not very long for such a process”, he said.
The text to be negotiated includes general provisions for setting high-level commitments on the development of national strategies, commitments with the private sector, the development of science as a basis for decisions, and predictable funding: “will require lots and lots of money. Funding is an issue, as it is in the international climate negotiations”.
The specific provisions identify the areas and obligations: - achieving equity; - provide equitable access and share the benefits; - strengthening sustainable health systems and resilience capacities; - local production, technology and know-how transfer; - governance, coordination and cooperation; - a ‘One Health’ approach (human health, animal health and environment, governance (governments and multi-sectoral actions at national level); - the commitment of governments and society as a whole; - global supply chains and logistics networks.
To Tomislav Sokol (EPP, Croatian), who stressed the importance of R&D and patents for vaccines, he assured that “the pharmaceutical industry and the WHO are fully involved”, adding: “the withdrawal of all intellectual property rights from the industry is not realistic, but production should be extended to a large number of sites in the world, in a way that is fair but also profitable for the industry”.
Delighted Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew Europe, French) recalled that the European Parliament had supported “by an overwhelming majority the regulation on cross-border threats”, which supports such a treaty.
Francesca Donato (non-attached Member, Italian), lamented that “all we talk about is vaccines”, asking whether there were any plans to promote “therapeutic means that work but were not on the market during the pandemic, because they were not officially recommended and a more open scientific debate”. In addition to vaccines, Mr Driece cited “masks, which are personal protective equipment”.
“The 2005 International Health Regulations Agreement exists for pandemic preparedness. However, it has not been implemented. And now we hear about another instrument! Trust is being undermined”, said Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR, Spain), concerned about conflicts of interest at the WHO, which is funded by Bill Gates and GAVI more than by countries.
Véronique Joron (ID, French) was alarmed by serious side effects “such as heart attacks and myocarditis, especially in young men a few days after vaccination”.
It is up to countries to say what they want to negotiate and for regulators to decide which vaccines to allow, according to the negotiator. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)