World Health Organisation (WHO) member states have agreed to a text detailing how they and the international community as a whole will prepare for and tackle future pandemics, following three years of negotiations and revisions.
The draft Pandemic Agreement, which according to the WHO aims to strengthen global collaboration on prevention, preparedness and response to future pandemic threats, will be presented at the upcoming World Health Assembly in May for sign-off.
The WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body was formed in December 2021 in order to bring about an agreement under the WHO constitution intended to help member states avoid mistakes and the international community more broadly to avoid mistakes made during the course of the Covid-19 pandemic.
However, critics of the early draft agreements argued that vague wording and sweeping statements contained in the text threatened freedom of expression and civil liberties.
This is because the core text at the heart of the agreement is partially binding, being composed of certain legally-binding components alongside non-binding elements, such as recommendations and guidelines.
One such legally-binding component in a later draft which has been retained for the agreement is the ‘Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing’ (PABS) system, which will be governed by a separate, legally-binding instrument that is to be finalised by May 2026.
Addressing the negotiations breakthrough, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that “the nations of the world made history in Geneva today”.
“In reaching consensus on the Pandemic Agreement, not only did they put in place a generational accord to make the world safer, they have also demonstrated that multilateralism is alive and well, and that in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground, and a shared response to shared threats.
“I thank WHO’s Member States, and their negotiating teams, for their foresight, commitment and tireless work. We look forward to the World Health Assembly’s consideration of the agreement and – we hope – its adoption,” he said.
Reuters reports that Article 11 of the agreement proved a sticking point, which addresses the transfer of technology and “know-how” for the production of pandemic‑related health products, with agreement reportedly struck by the addition of a clause noting that relevant transfers must be “mutually agreed” between parties.
A number of freedom of expression and sovereignty concerns were addressed during the years-long revision process.
Controversial articles highlighted by Gript previously, such as one that required the “harmonization of surveillance, in order to prevent, reduce the risk of, and prepare for, pandemics” and another that directed the “development and implementation” of a pandemic monitoring and evaluation system were removed in subsequent revisions.
Similarly, early references to poorly-defined terms such as ‘infodemics’ and ‘misleading information’ have been removed, while the terms ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ were greatly reduced in subsequent drafts, appearing only once in the latest publicly-available draft:
“The Parties to the WHO Pandemic Agreement…Recognizing the importance of building trust and ensuring the timely sharing of information to prevent misinformation, disinformation and stigmatization…have agreed as follows…”
Initial pandemic treaty drafts required states to manage so-called ‘infodemics’, defined as, among other things, “too much information…during a disease outbreak”.
‘Infodemics’ were characterised as causing ‘confusion’ and leading to “mistrust in health authorities”.
Earlier drafts also mandated that parties ‘combat’ and ‘prevent’ misleading information, misinformation, and disinformation, including through “international collaboration and cooperation”. However, they did so without offering definitions for these concepts or specifying the actions required from states to fulfill these obligations.
All such stipulations were removed from later drafts following criticism and advocacy from a variety of member states and legal observers.
The WHO press release regarding the negotiations progress noted that the proposal in its latest form “affirms the sovereignty of countries to address public health matters within their borders, and provides that nothing in the draft agreement shall be interpreted as providing WHO any authority to direct, order, alter or prescribe national laws or policies, or mandate States to take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns”.
This is to be understood in light of Article 24 governing the WHO secretariat’s role in the Pandemic Agreement, the agreed-upon text for which reads:
“Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic laws, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.”