🚨 The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) published the "zero draft" of the #pandemictreaty last week and briefed Member States about it this week.
The draft will be discussed in Geneva from 27 Feb to 3 March.
Summary of the process & highlights on the new text in this 🧵
During the briefing, Member States expressed concern:
⏰ too little time between now and the next meeting
⌛️ too little time dedicated to complex issues.
Suggestions included postponing discussions on denser issues or inter-sessional work (which may disadvantage smaller states)
The “zero draft” follows the same structure as the "conceptual zero draft.”
✅ Introduction followed by objectives, guiding principles and scope
✅ Four chapters outlining substantive content
✅ Two chapters dedicated to proposed treaty governance.
Equity is a chapter and theme throughout. Proposals include:
🔗 WHO Global Pandemic Supply Chain and Logistics Network
🏭 increased manufacturing capacity
💰 mandated transparency in publicly-funded research
🔐 access and benefit-sharing (ABS)
💉20% of products set aside for WHO
Strengthening and sustaining capacity priorities, including:
🎯 centrality of Universal Health Coverage
🧑🏽⚕️ skilled domestic and global public health emergency workforce
👀 simulation exercises, regular monitoring, and universal peer review
🤝 human rights protections
Coordination, collaboration and cooperation include:
🗺 WHO as the directing and coordinating authority
🌍 Solidarity and protecting the most vulnerable
🦃 One Health, whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches
📓 Health literacy, addressing mis- and dis-information
Financing suggestions include dedicating:
💶 5% of health expenditure to domestic pandemic preparedness, recover and response (PPRR) funding
💳 a certain percentage (TBC) of GDP to international pandemic PPRR funding
The treaty would be governed by a Conference of the Parties, reviewing implementation every three years, supported by:
🧮 administrative “Officers of the Parties” and a secretariat provided by WHO.
🔗 inclusive consultative body for advice/technical input (not decision-making)
The draft is silent on any oversight or accountability mechanism for the treaty, only to be agreed upon at the governing body's first meeting.
Proposed monitoring and accountability only focus on achievements and gaps.
According to WHO, there have been nearly 37,000 cases and over 1200 associated deaths.
Every distinct is affected.
In the face of the deadliest cholera outbreak in the country’s history, vaccines are in (too) short supply.
🧵
Prompted by a severe vaccine shortage, in Oct 2022, the International Coordinating Group on Vaccine Provision (ICG), which allocates cholera vaccines to affected countries, announced that it would provide a single-dose regimen instead of two.
A long list of countries report cholera outbreaks.
🗺 Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burundi, Cameroon, DRC, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Tanzania.
This week, in preparation for its meeting on 20 February, the Working Group on Amendments to the IHR (WGIHR) published the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) report on proposed amendments.
The TRC report is intended to help inform negotiations.
Update in this 🧵
The Director-General appointed the TRC to assess amendments proposed by member states for appropriateness, clarity, consistency, and feasibility.
The TRC also identified "shared values" including advancing equity, solidarity, cooperation, trust, transparency, and sovereignty.
The Technical Review Committee's report:
✅ provides article-by-article analysis
✅ summarizes implications of each proposed amendment
✅ provides wording improvements.
There are currently no proposals on requirements or modalities to verify information with state parties.
❌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
💥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.