Negotiations for an international agreement to fight future pandemics are accelerating, but some denounce a lack of ambition to overcome the inequalities in access to medicines highlighted by COVID-19.
The recent pandemic has cast a harsh light on the flaws in the global health system and, still in shock, the 194 member countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) have decided to negotiate a legally binding text to deal with a next disaster, or even prevent it.
At the closing ceremony of the WHO’s annual assembly on Tuesday in Geneva, its director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, urged countries to “negotiate a solid agreement”. “We are the generation that lived through the COVID-19 pandemic, so we must be the generation […] who brings about the changes to ensure the safety of future generations,” he insisted.
The process is still in its early stages with the ambitious goal of reaching a final agreement by May 2024.
But already, critics warn that the revisions made to the document which must serve as the basis for the negotiations weaken its scope, particularly in terms of access to vaccines and other medical products. There persists an inequality between rich and poor countries that has cost countless lives during the pandemic, due to lack of access to vaccines or even to medical oxygen.
“It’s a real step backwards,” Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Center at the University Institute of Geneva, told AFP. If the poorest countries do not see strong guarantees that they will be better protected in the next pandemic, “there is a real risk that they will pull out” of the talks, she warned.
“Cleaner”, but weaker
The revised text — a synthesis of a multitude of proposals from many member states — was presented last week by the bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), which is leading the discussions. This document identifies areas where consensus is emerging and offers various options on the most controversial issues.
For some observers, this draft, which will be reviewed in mid-June, was “cleaner”, but weaker on some major points.
In particular, some NGOs deplore the removal of a reference to obliging private companies, benefiting from public funds for their research and development, to be transparent about their pricing and to transfer their technology to the poorest countries. Instead, the draft as it stands encourages countries to promote knowledge sharing and transparency “in accordance with national laws and as needed”.
“Voluntary measures are not enough”, judges Luis Villarroel, head of the NGO Innovarte, in favor of a balanced intellectual property system. Mohga Kamal-Yanni, of the People’s Vaccine Alliance, which fights inequalities in access to vaccines, also considers the text “weak”. “COVID-19 — and HIV before it — has made it clear that we cannot depend on the goodwill of pharmaceutical companies to ensure equitable access,” she said in a statement.
Pharmaceutical industry
There are also elements in the text which are unlikely to suit the pharmaceutical industry, but which are important to less wealthy countries, such as the idea of linking the sharing of genetic resources for research purposes to the obligation to share the fruits in the form of royalties, transfer of technology or medicines.
The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations is concerned that such an obligation could slow down data sharing. “We remain concerned that decisions may be made that we will end up regretting in a future pandemic,” IFPMA chief Thomas Cueni said in a statement sent to AFP. “Both the innovation system and rapid access to pathogens have been crucial in enabling the pharmaceutical industry to develop new vaccines, treatments and diagnostics in response to COVID-19. »
One thing everyone seems to agree on is that new pandemic threats are looming and consensus is urgently needed to meet the May 2024 deadline.