The missing heart of pandemic treaty

The Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System that is central to the treaty is an annex, with details still to be worked out

- LATHA JISHNU

PERHAPS IT was the best they could do, given the stark inequities of resources and technology among the nations of the world and the power imbalance in international forums. Perhaps it is natural that after three years of intensive negotiations that started during the COVID-19 outbreak, the worst pandemic in a 100 years, World Health Organization (WHO) members were relieved to agree on some essential steps to make the world somewhat safer from pandemics. The draft agreement finalised on April 16 by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) of WHO will be placed for approval by the World Health Assembly meeting coming up in May. If it goes through, would WHO have put in place a more equitable global health security architecture? Maybe not.

The agreement hammered out by INB is undoubtedly a triumph of consensus. But in arriving at a consensus in a multilateral forum, developing countries invariably have to settle for less. As we wrote earlier, it means more give on their part, while the rich nations take more (see “Grab the pathogens, but don’t share the drugs”, Down To Earth, March 16-31, 2024). If Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO's Director-General, saw it as a victory of multilateralism when the 194-member organisation barring the US agreed on the broad outlines of the pandemic treaty and that “in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground, and a shared response to shared threats”, he cannot really be faulted. Three years is pretty good speed for a global pact.