Pandemic preparedness

The World Health Organization member-states are meeting for two weeks (ending May 10) to conclude negotiations on an international legally binding instrument on the pandemic (Instrument). The idea of an Instrument emerged out of an EU initiative announced at the Paris Security Conference in 2021. The main motivation behind the Instrument is to better prepare the world to face the next pandemic from the hard lessons learned during the Covid-19 pandemic through legally binding obligations mainly on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPR).

The draft Instrument proposes to create obligations to undertake at least nine types of surveillance and data sharing with WHO. Interestingly, there is no regulation by WHO regarding the use of data obtained from countries through the Instrument. Further, it also obligates countries to commit to following the One Health approach, which includes actions to “identify and address the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface”. The proposal is to develop and implement the modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of One Health by May 31, 2026.

Complete U-turn

At the same time, it protects the interest of developed countries and proposes only best endeavour provisions on technology transfer and geographically diversified production of health products required for the prevention and response to the pandemic.

As a result, there is no proposal in the draft Instrument to create binding legal obligations on countries to take measures to ensure the predictable and sustainable supply of health products during the pandemic or inter-pandemic period or after the outbreak of the pandemic.

It shows that there is a complete U-turn on the promise of equitable access through geographically diversified production.

Also, there are still no clear provisions to share the benefit emerging out of the R&D of pathogens fairly and equitably.

According to the Convention of Bio Diversity and Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, the sharing of benefits emerging out of R&D is a pre-condition to providing access to pathogens or any genetic materials.

Though India is already carrying out most of the surveillance mentioned in the draft Instrument and also might be sharing the data with agencies like WHO, undertaking a legal obligation to share without effective safeguards or the regulation of the use of data by WHO and other actors could be problematic, especially in the light of the potential misuse of such data for strategic and economic ends.

Another area of concern is One Health, which would require further investment in the surveillance infrastructure covering animals, plants and the environment. The obligations on data sharing from one health surveillance could result in the use of such data as a tool to restrict the import of agricultural goods using sanitary and phytosanitary measures. In short, acceptance of obligations on surveillance and health along with data sharing is tantamount to legitimisation of the data extraction agenda of developed countries.

Further, the draft Instrument also proposes regulatory harmonisation, that is, main-streaming of the regulatory standards of developed countries. Implementation of such standards would enhance the compliance cost and, in turn, would compromise affordable access. Regulatory harmonisation is often used by the global pharmaceutical industry to manage the competition from the generic industry

India needs to tread carefully and take a strong position against the unfair proposals in the draft Instrument, which serves the economic strategic interest of developed countries over public health and legitimises inequity in the pandemic PPR.

The writer is a Legal Advisor and Senior Researcher, Third WorldNetwork

COMMENT NOW