Hi,

Central bankers are a cool breed. In my former life as a financial journalist reporting on monetary policy, it was fascinating to see how they pushed back politically dominated finance ministries, and the other such encumbrances, while going about their own way to protect their policy space. Those were the old days, when central bankers were not threatened, neither did they acquiesce. There is little place for nostalgia now.

Watching clips of former central banker, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos (former governor: Bank of Canada and Bank of England) last week, really underscored a key tenet of leadership: the ability to rise to the occasion while taking multiple factors into consideration just as central bankers do. (More critical voices have of course, taken his speech with a grain of salt, realism and context, see Middle East Eye: Carney wants a new world order - but only for the West)

So dire is the state of leadership generally, that anyone who says the right thing becomes a hero overnight. Nevertheless, rhetoric matters in this climate characterized by supine diplomacy.

Despite Geneva’s current direction towards becoming an ineffectual center for diplomacy on the back of across the board funding cuts, the paling citadel of multilateralism in global health may yet hold out a lesson or two for the international order.

I present an update on the key dynamics (not bleak, not bright) emerging from the negotiations on the Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing that took place at WHO last week. We hope you find this missive useful and timely.

We love doing this work that offers value to our readers who work in global health. But it is getting harder to do this without institutional support. so we can continue to provide news you can use.

Support public interest global health journalism, become a paying subscriber. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive. Help us raise important questions, and in keeping an ear to the ground. makes this possible.

Gratitude to our subscribers who help us contribute to greater accountability in global health.

More soon!

Best,

Priti

Feel free to write to us: genevahealthfiles@gmail.com; Find us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/genevahealthfiles.bsky.social

I. IGWG UPDATE

Undeterred By American Bilateral Deals, WHO Member States Focus on Negotiating Multilateral Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing System

In a world of beleaguered multilateralism, came Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at Davos at the World Economic Forum last week, calling for genuine cooperation in the midst of what he termed as “a rupture” in the international order. He also asked middle powers to act together.

The speech came in time just as negotiators at the World Health Organization met to resume negotiations on the Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing System – a multilateral effort to govern the access to pathogen information and the sharing of benefits during health emergencies.

After all, some countries are faced with bilateral deals promising aid for health information from the U.S., which is enticing key actors in the negotiations, including countries from the African continent, but not only.

Similar to PM Carney’s approach described in his appeal at Davos, countries are assessing real versus perceived opportunities from the bilateral agreements vis-à-vis the PABS negotiations.

Several negotiators across key delegations told us, the bilaterals barely came up on the negotiating floor. It was also significant, that the negotiations coincided with the formal withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO, including visible consequences such as removal of the U.S. flag, outside the headquarters of the organization in Geneva.

But it appears, the war of words on the U.S. withdrawal did not really seep into the negotiating room. Though the U.S. withdrawal has been bemoaned by WHO, experts and others, several countries would rather not have the U.S. at the WHO, diplomats told us. The forthcoming Executive Board meeting at WHO next week, countries will discuss U.S. membership.

To be sure, the incongruous absence of the U.S. from the negotiations, in fact shows up as presence. So while the bilateral deals are being dismissed as a side-show in geopolitics that they cannot control, several diplomats acknowledge that these dynamics have ensured that the WHO PABS system begins on a weakened footing.

“In the current situation, a WHO-backed PABS system already has weak leverage. For one, we cannot insist on exclusive access to information to a multilateral system,” a developed country diplomat told us on a characteristically wintery January evening in Geneva.

But this is not a view that is shared by everyone.

“We have not seen the U.S. MoUs. We do not trust press statements from the White House. We are conducting negotiations based on the information we have,” a developing country negotiator told us over lunch last week. (It is not fully clear if any country has already signed specimen-sharing agreements with the U.S.)

Those countries closest to such deals, are assessing what the multilateral PABS system will offer them: a future network effect, depth of exchange based on diverse pathogen materials, access to at least some assured benefits, and a broader framework of health security possible only at the multilateral level.

For some countries though, the hard cash promised by the U.S. through these aid for information agreements, will still hold sway in the context of decimated or challenged health systems. Many say that the trade-offs being offered are beyond health.

In this story, we discuss the deliberations from last week. We were onsite conducting interviews, speaking to negotiators and experts. We also reviewed proposed text from the bureau of the Intergovernmental Working Group that was discussed by countries.