❌only proposes oversight mechanisms assessing achievements and gaps in preparedness capacity
❌doesn't mention independence
❌ mechanism for monitoring overall compliance won't be designed until (at least) the 1st treaty governing body meeting
While there is mention of a "universal peer review mechanism" to assess preparedness under Article 13 of the "zero draft", such a mechanism already exists under the Universal Health and Preparedness Review, currently under pilot (and which already has broad support at WHO).
Pure and simple, this is a punt.
To be effective, the treaty must:
🧾 Include language on accountability
✅ Enshrine independents as a key principle
🔗 Hardwire a pathway for escalation to heads of state
💥Today the WHO Executive Board discussed the report by the Secretariat on governance for health emergency preparedness and response.
Brief summary of what happened in this 🧵
Dr Mike Ryan explained that the proposals intended to align with, not circumvent, Member State processes.
He emphasized that countries should be at the centre of emergency response and that international instruments must enable countries to implement national plans.
Dr. Tedros stressed
- the report is intended as a living document (that deliberations help refine).
- proposals will maintain momentum and inform INB and IHR processes without undermining them
- WHO's centrality in anchoring a cross-sectoral response in health.