Sovereign Control Over Pathogen Information: The Design Crux of The Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing System at The WHO [IGWG8 Update]

Readers,

Policy design is complex precisely because it needs squaring technical constraints with political realities.

While health authorities are in the throes of responding to the Ebola emergency in the Democratic Republic of Congo, health experts and diplomats have been discussing the nuts and bolts of governing the access to pathogen information, and the access to medical products during health emergencies.

These negotiations need not only technical solutions, but also involve grappling with politics while being diplomatic.

In this edition, we bring you an update on this week's deliberations at the WHO in Geneva. Thank you for reading.

The press has been kept out of these discussions entirely. Why would you not want to educate journalists, and promote public understanding and engagement on these issues, is puzzling.

Geneva Health Files offers value to our readers who are experts in global health. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive, without institutional support. For six years, we have provided you with the information and tools that directly contribute to your work in the field. We rely on our readers who value news they can use.

By becoming a paying subscriber you make our work possible and help us gather, report and synthesise global health intelligence.

Best,

Priti

Priti Patnaik, Founder & Publisher, Geneva Health Files

Feel free to write to us: genevahealthfiles@gmail.com ; Find us on BlueSky, Instagram and Linkedin.

Presenting our weekly in-depth analysis on global health that captures the big picture and the nuances like no one else does. This is an exclusive edition for our subscribers.

I. IGWG UPDATE

By Priti Patnaik

Reaching an agreement on the Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing System (PABS), continues to be daunting for WHO member states for a host of reasons, some procedural, some political, but most of all: a current lack of a common vision on the design of the mechanism.

The 8^th meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group set up to negotiate the PABS mechanism (an annex to the Pandemic Agreement), unfolded with insufficient progress and persistent divergences in positions, diplomats said.

THE PROCESS

Earlier in the week, we already reported on the challenges in the process including the fact that the six-member IGWG Bureau is operating at less than optimum levels with at least two vacant positions of a Co-Chair and a Vice-Chair. This week, Ahmed Bin Salem Al Mandhari, from the Ministry of Health of Oman, was elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Bureau. He was nominated by the Eastern Mediterranean region. (This brings the number of bureau members to four.)

Sources familiar with the dynamics indicated that countries who have been co-facilitators will increasingly be playing a greater role given the reduced capacity of the Bureau. Some of the co-facilitators in recent informal sessions include Norway, China, Tanzania and Mexico. Countries will continue to consult informally in October, and will meet in November for the 9^th formal meeting of the IGWG.

We also learned that at least one country from Western Europe formally wrote a letter to the Bureau seeking a change to the process in the way these talks have been conducted. Developing country diplomats also shared frustration on the difficulties in negotiating text during plenary sessions. “There are 190 different ways to draft the same thing. And you bring so many languages to interpret what is being drafted. It will not be possible to reach any agreement by negotiating text in the plenary,” a senior diplomat told us. The person suggested informal groups discussing and proposing language on smaller sections of the text, so that the proceedings can move faster in plenary sessions.

Some also suggested that the WHO secretariat must play a greater role in guiding discussions. “There is expertise in this house. Why are they letting these discussions meander? The secretariat has to play a role in keeping the negotiations on track,” the developing country diplomat said. But not all may agree to this approach, given the distrust levels in general.

There are concerns on whether the negotiations at this point are also particularly susceptible to political pressures. Key countries head to elections including Brazil, France, Germany among others. Questions are being raised on what political transitions at home would mean, not only for the IGWG Bureau, but also negotiators in Geneva and the positions they take in these talks.

This week, countries “cleaned some text” across a few provisions. But a version of the onscreen text shared this week is nearly 18 pages long with reportedly more than 400 brackets. On key provisions, those pertaining to the access to information, and benefit-sharing, divergences remain, sources said.

In this update we look at some of the prevailing dynamics in these negotiations. This is based on numerous interviews with negotiators, stakeholders and other experts during the past week. We also discuss in depth the design options on the table.

THE POLITICS

The politics behind the positions of countries themselves have not changed. But Geneva-based sources also indicated that there are other kinds of political motivations seeking to influence these negotiations in a bid to push countries towards compromise and consensus.

Sovereign Control Over Pathogen Information: The Design Crux of The Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing System at The WHO [IGWG8 Update]