INB press conference on proposed pandemic agreement transcript – 3 May 2024
Overview
00:00:10
FC Good morning. Good afternoon. I welcome you to this virtual press conference. We wanted to invite media to hear from the Co-Chairs of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body because this week they had negotiation and we wanted to update you on the progress and to give you the opportunity to ask your questions.
Let me introduce to you the panelists. Today, we have the two Co-Chairs of the INB, Dr Precious Matsoso and Mr Roland Driece. We have also Dr Jaouad Mahjour, who is the Head of WHO Secretariat to INB and IHR Amendments, and we have Mr Steve Solomon, our Principal Legal Officer. So, without delay, I would like to give the floor to Mr Roland Driece for his opening remarks. You have the floor.
RD Thank you very much. There is a bit of an echo. Thank you very much and good afternoon, everybody. It’s very good that so many of you are interested in the work of the INB and where we stand and, to be honest, I think that’s only justified because it’s an important treaty, legal instrument we try to establish. It’s one of the first and one of the few legally binding instruments worldwide we would have on health and pandemics.
00:01:50
And what happened in the last couple of years with the COVID crisis proved that the world was not well prepared to work together in fighting and preventing pandemics from happening, which cost many lives. And we do everything we can with this instrument to make that situation better than it was before.
It’s not easy. We have a lot of hurdles to take because it’s not easy to get almost 200 Member States on the same page in that respect. So, it’s a lot of work and a lot of negotiations but I’m really happy to share with you and answer all your questions on where we stand and what we try to achieve. Thank you.
PM Greetings to all. Thank you so much for taking interest in this important issue. As you may know, the World Health Assembly, which consists of countries that come from six regions of the world, have been very seized with this important issue. For the past two years we’ve had to work and look at how we can come up with an instrument, a legal instrument to address some of the gaps that were identified.
They made a historic decision two years ago when they decided that countries had to meet, all 194 countries had to meet and agree on a legally binding instrument that will prevent what we saw with COVID from ever happening again.
00:03:35
And I think it’s an important process in that no country is going to be forced into an agreement. Countries are going to come there to negotiate and come up with the best possible solution that can make the world safer, that can make the world fairer, so that there is access to vaccines, there is access to diagnostics and therapeutics that can help us prevent any of these outbreaks from turning into pandemics but ensure that we’re also better prepared because it was one problem that we’re not, as a world, better prepared.
And they are agreeing on modalities on how best to get us to be better prepared and how preparedness can also be properly funded, adequately funded and how health workers can be protected because they were at the forefront of responding, they were in the frontline and they had to protect us in hospitals, in theatres, in ICUs. And we have to make sure that they’re not exposed to this in future and we come up with better measures in terms of this instrument in future.
FC Thank you, Dr Matsoso. I’d like now to open the floor to journalists’ questions starting with Robin Millard, from AFP. Robin, you have the floor. Robin, can you hear me?
RM Thank you. We are now hitting the halfway point in this session. Can you summarise the progress so far and say where there is agreement and where there is not agreement so far? Thank you.
00:05:52
PM In what we describe as equity provision, there is sufficient progress in that a number of countries are beginning to find each other. In the past week I would have been less optimistic but, for the week that we’ve spent, a number of countries are beginning to say it is important that they agree on how access to pathogens can be achieved and they are beginning to what the benefits can be and what the package of these can be and what are the foundational principles.
They’re agreeing on how best the community can be informed and how countries can better coordinate such that the whole of society and whole of government can organise at a national level in a manner that helps them prepare better. And from that perspective, there are those elements, of course, that are difficult but they’re not insurmountable.
We’re quite optimistic that they will find solutions because, as you know, negotiations are give and take and I think they’re at a stage where they’re actually finding each other and there are a number of areas where I think we’re really comfortable where they are and how the dialogue has improved, communication and also engagement between the Member States.
RD And maybe in addition to that, it’s not uncommon, actually it’s quite normal that everything should come together almost on the last couple of days because we discuss all the articles. We have discussed them many times. We will still be discussing them again.
It’s standard negotiation practice that countries will only give up on what’s important for them when they’ve seen the whole picture and that’s when everybody is gradually moving together and that is what we see and that is hopeful. There’s still a lot of work to do but we are pretty confident that by the end of the week we will have a good result.
00:08:22
FC Thank you. I would like now to invite Kerry Cullinan, from Health Policy Watch, to ask the next question. Kerry?
KC I think all of you look like you need a good night’s sleep, so I hope that you get it. I’d like to know some specifics with Article 12, which is what everyone is talking about, perhaps. Does the 20% allocation to WHO still stand? Is that still in the agreement? And what does the schedule look like for negotiations for next week?
RD Thank you for that question and, like I said, nothing is agreed yet but also nothing has been taken out yet. So, that is part of the ongoing discussions. We are positive that we will enter by the end of next week with a solution that is foreseeing in that but at this stage nothing is agreed and nothing has been taken out, so it’s still on the table.
PM Well, in addition you’ve asked about the schedule. You may be aware that we start at nine in the morning, we finish at nine in the evening but for this week we think we’ll even finish at midnight. Like you say, we could also do with a bit of sleep. Hopefully, that will be possible but having said that we virtually organised our schedule in such a way that we’ll start with those articles where a lot of effort is needed for negotiations.
00:10:05
As you know, you mentioned Article 12 but we’re hopeful because some countries are beginning to find each other and, who knows, by Monday maybe they would have agreed. We also have those articles that are very easy to finalise. In fact, on our way here we heard that one of the articles was agreed to and it was a celebration, the first, of course. But we’re that there’ll be more. So, our schedule will run, as you know, until Friday. They’ll negotiate up to the end.
FC Jamey Keaten, from Associated Press. Jamey, you have the floor.
JK Thank you, Fadéla. My question is pretty basic, a couple of basic ones. What happens if on May 10th you haven’t got an agreement? Will this have to be fleshed out all the way up to WHA? Is it possible that it could still be worked on after May 10th? And then could you also just tell us a little bit about where the fault lines are? I know you maybe don’t want to go country by country but could you just tell how it’s shaping up? Is the traditional Developing World versus Developed World cleavage or are there other types of fault lines between the different side on these issues? Thank you.
RD Maybe starting with your question what would happen if there’s no consensus or agreement by the end of next week? We discussed this today as well with the Member States and we reminded them at we, as a group, as INB, as we’re called, we have an assignment and that assignment is that we work on an instrument and that we report back to the World Health Assembly, which is the yearly meeting of all the countries of the WHO in May and we report on the outcome of our work.
00:12:04
And that is what we are going to do and it’s not our business, so to say, to decide what should happen next. We are still optimistic that it will be a good result, so then everything is clear but in the situation what we would not find consensus by the end of the week we would report that to the World Health Assembly and it’s up to the World Health Assembly then to decide what should be happening next. So, we don’t want to go directly because it’s not our job to do that.
PM On your second question about if we see any polarisation of some sort. On difficult issues I would imagine that countries are trying to find a middle ground on what would work best to help prepare and prevent. I guess it’s a matter of emphasis, whether you emphasise equity or you emphasise prevention. But they’re both important because from what has happened with COVID we know that equity was a problem with countries, between countries, so it’s not an either/or. And I think that’s how they are trying to approach this difficult issue.
But also prevention. Prevention is important for everybody, It’s not for some groups of countries or not. And this is the kind of response that we are seeing, that are trying to find each other and trying to find the best possible solutions.
00:13:48
RD In addition, what you also see across the board, it’s not North/South or East/West, it’s across the board, is when trade interests kick in that’s always challenging to find solutions but so far we’ve only seen that countries want to work around that and look for solutions, let’s call it that. They look for solutions, how difficult it is, because they always have to work with their ministries back in the capitals, for example their economic affairs colleagues. But everybody has the willingness to deliver and that’s important.
FC Politico is going to ask the next question. Rory, you have the floor.
RO Thank you. I was wondering if you could confirm which article it is where there has been consensus. And could you also please outline the next steps for Article 12 on Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing? What’s the plan there? I know that’s been one of the contentious ones. Will you be redrafting a new text or what’s the plan?
RD The positive news on that Article 12 on access and benefit sharing is that Member States understand very well that the key to success is in their hands and what you now see is that after a long time of only telling us, as chairs of the meeting, what they would like to see happening, and it shows that it’s not the same for everyone and that we just have opposing views.
But what you see now is that people are really trying to sit down together and work things out and that’s a very positive and needed sign and actually we’re very optimistic that after the weekend we would probably see some light at the end of the PABS tunnel, so to say, so that’s a very good thing.
PM We got the news that Article 18 has been agreed, so it brought smiles to our faces. Of course, there are some articles that have been progressed as significantly. I think we’ll see more of those early next week.
00:16:05
FC Thank you, both. Now, I would like to invite Jon Cohen, from Science, to ask the next question. Jon, you have the floor.
JC Thank you. Is there a sense that the Article 12 contentious issues are being pushed to the Conference of the Parties ultimately?
PM Not that we’re aware of. I can confirm that groups of Member States are meeting as we speak, trying to find a solution, and it’s a sign of commitment. In fact, this is how they’ve described Article 12, They’ve described it as the heart of this instrument. And, of course, without a heartbeat you know there’s no life. So, because of that recognition, as I speak they’re meeting to find a solution.
RD At the same time, if you’ve been following the specific negotiations a bit deeper, you know that all the operationalisation aspects of such a system are rather complex and technical and they do not really fit into a legal treaty instrument, so you will always have to do further work to take care of all those details, how such a system works out in practice.
So, yes, there will always be work in the future but we try to agree upon are the essentials, the fundament for those further talks that are needed to make it really work in the end.
00:17:50
FC I would like now to invite Priti Patnaik, from Geneva Health Files, to ask the next question. Priti, you have the floor.
PP Hi. Thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to know in the event that the INB is not able to reach consensus on a pandemic agreement, how that will affect adoption of the amendments to the IHR in May 2024 because obviously there are still linkage? If you could explain that. Thanks.
RD Well, what Member States do with the IHR is not our responsibility to say that. There is a separate meeting going on for the IHR but it’s obvious that if we do not find success with the INB that will have implications for the IHR and it’s up to the negotiations on the IHR that determine what they want to do with that. And it’s by far, of course, the preferred option that both will go down or go up at the same time.
PM In addition, the two processes have been kind of linked together in that we’ve been engaging to find coherence because Member States do not want to repeat provisions and they don’t want contradictory provisions in their two instruments. So, there’s been some communication, even between the bureaus, to find alignment between the two instruments.
FC I would like now to invite Isabel Saco, from EFE, to ask the next question. Isabel, you have the floor.
IS Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Fadéla. Thank you for this briefing. I would like to ask among all the different difficult issues that have been discussed during this week and that will be discussed next week, what do you consider are the most difficult to work on? Because you mentioned, for example, commercial or trade interests. There are also IP issues, issues maybe related to funding also. So, what would you identify as those that are, as I said, more difficult to overcome, to agree on the same basis? Thank you.
00:20:28
PM There are issues that some associate with equity provisions and, like you correctly said, IP is a very difficult subject and it’s an area where Member States have to find agreeable language that they’re all comfortable with but that can help us achieve equitable access. But there’s also access and benefit sharing, which Member States have said they would like to see this happen on an equal footing. But it is how that is supposed to happen and what kind of legal text do they agree to that should be included in the instrument?
There’s also One Health, for instance, which involves a number of different agencies beyond WHO. At the national level it involves different ministries. It’s how countries can engage all these ministries to ensure that at national level they have a common position that can be agreed to but also the engagement of different agencies pulling together.
At a global level I think there is already a mechanism where there is coordination. I think it’s at a national level where this coordination can happen and this can find expression in the instrument.
00:22:09
RD And next to that one of the most challenging issues is, I think, that everything is related to everything and that you cannot take away one of those building blocks because then other people are not content with the outcome of it. So, you need to gradually make steps in finding agreement and comfort and trust for everybody that if we say yes to this we will not forget about that.
So, it’s a very delicate construction that we try to set up and only if everybody is on board on everything we have a success, and that is the biggest challenge, I think.
FC We have Julien Lemaignen, from Le Monde. Julien, you have the floor.
JL Hello. Do you hear me?
FC Yes, very well. Go ahead, Julien.
JL Thank you so much. My question is about the last draft and still the Article 12. I would like to know if there is a new provision saying the details of any PABS would have to be further discussed in two years from now. I would like to know to what extent this new provision has eased or unblocked the talks during the past week and to what extent, from your point of view, this new provision could be a gamechanger or a key point to have this article accepted and maybe the whole treaty agreed. Thanks.
RD Like I said a little bit earlier, is that the PABS system is technically and politically very complex. There is industry involved. The research world is involved. There is money involved. There are trade aspects involved. And in the beginning we tried to figure out that configuration up to the detail and put that in this treaty text and we found that was just, at this stage, impossible to do it in the short timeframe that we had because we should not forget that we try to set up legal instrument in two years’ time, which is incredibly fast, actually speaking from an international negotiations perspective.
00:24:17
So, we said that we should cut it in half, we should try to have the fundamentals in the treaty and leave the details for further work. And I think everybody agrees that is the right approach. I don’t think anybody opposes that. They might feel sorry that we did not manage to do it all in the treaty but they understand that and accept that.
The main discussions now are if we do that and we want to make sure that the fundamentals are right and that we are talking about the same fundamentals, what are those fundamentals on which that building should be built? And the discussions that we mentioned between groups of countries are very positive to agree upon those fundamentals and that would be very good.
PM And maybe just to add. You know adoption of a treaty is not the end of a process, it is a beginning of a process because once the World Health Assembly adopts this pandemic agreement, then it kick-starts other processes, firstly at a country level. There must be ratification by parliaments and we have to get a threshold of countries that ratifies the treaty so that it can come into force.
00:25:42
And the proposal at the moment that countries must agree to is that the number is 60 we need as signatories to the treaty. I think if it reaches 60, then it can come into force. Then it kicks in other process, the establishment of a COP and so on. So, those processes take time and we’re hoping that we put the time optimistically to run over that period but in recognition of these important steps that will kick-in after adoption.
FC Thank you so much. We are coming to the end of this press briefing. I would like our experts, if they have any final remarks to make before letting them go back to the negotiation table because the meeting is still going on. If you want to say a few words, final words.
PM Well, the final words I can say is the window of opportunity is closing and once it closes it will be a missed opportunity intergenerationally because there are new priorities and we cannot afford to miss this opportunity. We can only better encourage countries to work towards finalising this.
RD I would like to add that I’m really happy that so many colleagues of the press are interested in this work because there’s also a lot of misconceptions about what’s going on in the world and especially around what we are doing here. And we’ve seen examples of that.
So, I’m really happy that a lot of colleagues from the press are really interested in what’s going on and then you see and if you read what we have come up with, the draft that we’ve come up with, that this is about collaboration and cooperation between countries. This is not about anyone telling the government of a country what it can do and what it cannot do, for example, in times if pandemic and that is so important to bring out there.
00:27:54
There is even is a separate article, actually, in the treaty text that we propose that specifically says that nothing in this treaty dictates, and these are my own words, it’s a little bit different there, but dictates to Member States what they can or cannot do when it comes to measures, for example, in times of pandemics. And that’s really important to acknowledge, what this is and what this is not. Thank you.
FC Can I ask for your indulgence? We have a journalist willing to ask a question. She’s based here, in Geneva. If I can give her the floor. And it will be the last question from Juliette Perreard, Nikkei. Juliette, you have the floor and you will be the last one.
JP Thank you. Good evening. Thanks for the brief. I have one quick question because I am not sure I understood well but some countries, some Member States were thinking that it should have finished tonight, by the 5th May and now it goes on for the next week. Can you explain why some Member States were saying that was supposed to reach an agreement on 5th May? What was the deadline?
RD Well, there is no deadline. The deadline is the World Health Assembly meeting where we have to report to but we set out two years ago on a path that should have led to agreement in a meeting before this meeting and because you never know, of course, how things will run in practice, we encountered that we were just not ready because it’s so much work
00:29:32
And we decided to have one more final week and in the preparations of those we concluded that’s not going to be enough, we need two weeks, and we added an extra week. And there were Member States who said, well, that is complicated because we already reported back home that we should finish on that date but they understand it. They might not find it convenient for all kinds of reasons, national reasons, but I don’t think that anybody does not understand why we need this extra week and nobody is opposing it.
FC Thank you so much and wishing you a wonderful evening and a bon weekend.