Global health groups blast WHO draft pandemic agreement

The World Health Organisation has come under fire over a draft Pandemic Agreement, which has been termed a “disgraceful capitulation to greed”.

Their criticism comes after the World Health Assembly recently agreed to amend the International Health Regulations and negotiate a comprehensive pandemic accord within a year.

However, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and civil society organisations from around the world have raised concerns over inequities in the draft, which is expected to prepare the world for appropriate response in case of a pandemic.

“The new treaty, as it stands, fails on all the basics - transparency, accountability, and most of all, equity,” said AHF President Michael Weinstein in a virtual press conference.

“Its core principle is extreme greed and selfishness perpetuated by the rich countries, protecting multinational drug companies at the expense of the rest of the world.”

A major point of contention is the provision that guarantees only 20 per cent of pandemic-related health products to the WHO in the event of a pandemic, leaving 80 per cent of crucial vaccines, treatments and diagnostics vulnerable to the international scramble witnessed during Covid-19.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  WHO members' pandemic accord talks to spill into 2025
• 
  Why voters might make Ruto one-term president
• 
  Billionaire Bill Gates on trial over Covid-19 vaccines safety
• 
  Scientists urge nations to prepare for pandemic by voting wisely

“Have we learned nothing from the Covid-19 pandemic?” Weinstein asked, echoing concerns raised in a recent Lancet editorial.

Dr Penninah Iutung, AHF’s Africa Bureau Chief, cautioned that infectious diseases know no borders, as exemplified by Ebola outbreaks in West Africa and Uganda, as well as Covid-19. She urged wealthy nations to negotiate in good faith and commit to equity.

Weinstein further criticised the draft as reminiscent of colonialism, where developing nations provide natural resources, in this case, pathogens, while wealthier countries sell back vaccines and medicines at unaffordable prices.

“Fortress Europe is a crazy notion. It didn’t work for Covid, and it won’t work against the next pathogen,” said Weinstein.

“This treaty offers not even a single slice of bread, just crumbs. The position of the wealthy nations is a dangerous disgrace that must be rejected.”

Nikos Dedes, Chair of Positive Voice from Greece, warned that prioritising pharmaceutical interests over equitable solutions perpetuates global inequality, increasing vulnerability to future crises.

Loretta Wong of the UK stressed the need for a robust financial mechanism, estimating that 10.5 billion dollars is needed annually for pandemic preparedness.

Civil society groups also criticised the Geneva process as limiting the participation of affected countries. There are growing calls to relocate talks to the global south for more equitable representation.

AHF has urged delegates to address the outcry by revising the text to operationalise equity over commercial priorities through binding rules, oversight, and full participation of all impacted stakeholders.