Pandemic agreement negotiations receive ‘a solid zero’ for transparency from stakeholders

2 months ago 15

Stakeholders attending the negotiations on a future pandemic agreement say that new engagement modalities lack transparency and damage trust in the process.

The International Negotiating Body (INB), tasked with agreeing a text for a future pandemic accord, met this week for the first time since its mandate was extended at the World Health Assembly in June. The meeting focused on the proposed work plan, meeting schedule and methods of work.

French representative, Anne-Claire Amprou, replaces Roland Driece of the Netherlands as co-chair, of the INB, and Precious Matsoso of South Africa continues as fellow co-chair.

Amprou informed ‘relevant stakeholders’ that the working arrangements would exclude them from attending closed sessions.

Nina Schwalbe, Founder and CEO of Spark Street Advisors, which works on health and global development issues, told Euractiv, “The final decision was that [stakeholders] can attend in the mornings, for around 30 minutes, when they’ll tell us what happened the day before and what will be discussed that day, then we will leave.”

In a tweet, Schwalbe wrote, “Sorry, IMB. Transparency score zero remains a solid zero.”

Why does this matter?

“I think people are frustrated. Transparency is important in the process, because the World Health Assembly adoption is only the first step,” explained Schwalbe. “Any agreement will then have to go back to member states for approval, which in some cases will require ratification. Transparency in the process is important for the ultimate passage of the agreement.”

The Pandemic Action Network has collected 170 signatures to “facilitate an inclusive process to deliver a pandemic agreement grounded in equity and human rights.”

Concerns about transparency were also raised by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), who say that INB meetings should include formal consultation with industry experts:

“Improved modalities for stakeholder inclusion, emphasizing transparency and engagement, will enhance the breadth of expertise contributing to the agreement. This will facilitate the creation of a practical and equitable framework for pandemic preparedness and response.”

What next?

The INB are planning two more formal sessions, one in September and another for November, as well as some informal meetings in September and October to address the more difficult topics, such as, pathogen access and benefits sharing (PABS). If there is agreement in November a special session of the World Health Assembly will be organised for December.

“A special session requires at least 33 days notice. If they were to have a special session in December they would need to call it in the fist half of November,” said Schwalbe. “If no agreement is reached by November, further sessions will be held in February and April, with the aim of reaching agreement at the World Health Assembly in May 2025.”

A finalised work plan will be presented next week and member states will have until the end of July to propose experts for the INB’s consideration.