Pandemic Agreement: Urgency vs. Equity

The ongoing negotiations surrounding the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “Pandemic Agreement” have become increasingly complex, with significant contention over certain provisions. In response to the approaching deadlines, the negotiators are considering splitting the agreement into three legal instruments: the core “Pandemic Agreement,” the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) instrument, and a pandemic prevention and surveillance instrument. The rush to meet the November deadline seems driven by a desire to have an agreement signed before the Biden administration leaves office. This pressure has led to shortcuts, including the postponement of crucial decisions, raising concerns among various member nations and civil society organizations. While some elements are highlighted as “agreed upon,” the overarching concern is that many critical details remain unresolved.

Editor’s Note: The rush to sign an incomplete and still-contentious agreement without fully addressing concerns undermines the legitimacy of the process. The world has seen how ill-prepared systems can exacerbate inequality and lead to preventable suffering. This agreement should ensure that all member states, particularly those in the developing world, are fairly represented in the decision-making processes, with clear mechanisms for benefit-sharing and accountability during future health crises. The focus should be on creating a comprehensive, equitable, and transparent agreement rather than racing to meet political deadlines. [See also: WHO Sets Date for Finalizing Proposed Pandemic Treaty Despite Widespread Opposition, WHO Pandemic Treaty Fails, But Director-General Is Not Giving Up, Heritage Foundation Analyzes the WHO Pandemic Treaty Draft, Deems it a Failure]

Read Original Article