Negotiations for a Binding Agreement to Avert Future Health Catastrophes

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the weaknesses of countries, the World Health Organization and the international community on many fronts, from information sharing and poor preparation of health systems to weak international coordination and unequal access to vaccines and treatments.

Faced with millions of deaths from disease and economic and social chaos, WHO member states have begun negotiations on a binding agreement that would allow the next health catastrophe to be averted.

Despite the criticism and “false information”, these discussions are going well, according to what the World Health Organization officials in charge of the file confirmed Thursday.

An initial draft was sent to the countries in early February to serve as a basis for negotiations that take place regularly in Geneva.

This draft agreement is currently very broad, and the co-chair of the office of the International Negotiating Authority, Precious Matsuso, admitted Thursday that some topics may be difficult to negotiate, such as the issue of intellectual property.

“But the most important thing is that member states have recognized that it is important to develop a legally binding document,” she added in a press conference.

In parallel, countries launched a review of international health rules, the WHO Roadmap to Prevent the International Spread of Disease, to address the problems brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, co-chair of the working group in charge of the file, said that the recent negotiations on this issue “took place, as did the previous two meetings, in a very constructive dialogue. These meetings bode well for this process.”

However, the timetable is tight, and the World Health Organization hopes that these two projects will be completed in May 2024, which is an ambitious goal given the complexities of the issues, especially since some, including Twitter owner Elon Musk, are intensifying their criticism of the World Health Organization, considering that its projects threaten to undermine the sovereignty of Countries.

But these criticisms were denied by Bloomfield, saying, “It confuses me a lot, and I think we must put an end to this false information constantly because it is impossible for these operations, or even the World Health Organization, to trample on the sovereignty of countries.”

– No penalties –

Matsuso noted that the agreement-making process ensures that it is up to states to decide “what should be included in this legal document.”

“It is unique because member states will not just look at a text and start negotiating,” whereas lawyers usually “present a document” that is then negotiated by the states, she added.

In turn, Steve Solomon, chief legal advisor at the World Health Organization, said that countries will retain their authority after 2024.

And if the treaty is ratified in May 2024 by the World Health Organization, each country will be able to decide freely “whether to accept what has been adopted or not.”

And he continued, “As for the amended international health rules, if they were adopted in May 2024, they will not apply until after a year and” exclusively in countries that have not stopped implementing them.

Officials also sought to provide reassurance by saying that they were not entirely in agreement with imposing penalties for non-compliance with WHO rules.

“We should look for ways to incentivize and support countries to fully implement international health rules and fulfill their obligations, rather than imposing sanctions,” Bloomfield said.

Despite this, Matsuso pointed out the importance of having “mechanisms” that enable countries to be held accountable, while preserving their sovereignty, as the United Nations does through regular reviews of the human rights situation in each country.

In this regard, the World Health Organization launched a pilot project two years ago with countries interested in this idea, according to Dr. Jawad al-Mahjoor, an official at the World Health Organization.