The pandemic agreement talks about blocking on technology transfer – and continues

On Saturday morning, at sunrise, the entire pandemic agreement had been agreed – prohibiting the annoying question of whether the transfer of technology linked to the production of pandemic products should always be voluntary.

The negotiators spoke in the early hours of Saturday morning, trying to find a way to get around the blocking, according to sources close to the process.

Official talks at the 13th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiation body (INB) will resume on Tuesday, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

“InB13 ends Tuesday with several parts to be resolved. Several Member States must clarify various positions with capital,” said an WHO spokesperson Health policy watch.

Negotiations were to end on Friday in time for a draft agreement to be prepared in the World Health Assembly (WHA) next month.

The impasse is to know whether the transfer of technology for the production of health products related to the pandemic must be both “voluntary” and “mutually agreed conditions”, according to a footnote of article 11.

Thirty legal experts argue in a letter Sent to negotiators earlier in the week that the use of the “volunteer” will undermine the “sovereign right of countries … to implement legislation in their jurisdiction and equity in the preparation and the pandemic response”.

Several countries have laws authorizing non-voluntary measures in exceptional circumstances, including the Defense Production Act of the United States and the German population protection law in the event of an epidemic situation of national importance, adopted in 2020 in response to the Pandemic COVID-19.

Insisting only on the voluntary measures “will defeat two principles which guide the fundamental objective of the pandemic agreement: respect for the sovereign law of the States to implement legislation within their jurisdiction and equity in the preparation and the pandemic response”, note the experts.

“Volunteer” – or bust?

However, the pharmaceutical industry has said that the abolition of “volunteers” is a non -Non for them, and the European nations which host large pharmaceutical companies – especially in Germany and Switzerland – have also widened their heels on this issue.

The European pharmaceutical industry is Facing pricing threats of the United States, and earlier this week, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) has published a “Stark Warning” To the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, “unless Europe offers a change in rapid radical policy, pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing are increasingly likely to be directed to the United States”.

Various proposals have been made to adapt to different positions. Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International told negotiators on Friday morning that he “would have sense to say (article 11) is without prejudice” and does not affect the measures that the parties can take in accordance with their own laws.

This is in accordance with what the INB office proposed on Wednesday, namely that the footnote should be read: “For the purposes of this agreement, the transfer of technology refers to a agreed process where technology is transferred to mutually agreed conditions. This understanding is without prejudice and does not affect the measures that the parties can take into account with their national laws and regulations, and in accordance with their international obligations ”.

However, there are also other proposals on the table, According to Third World Network. These involve:

• Modify the footnote;
• Delete the footnote and use the language convention language on tobacco control (FCTC), article 22 “as mutually agreed” after each mention of “technology transfer” in the text;
• Withdrawal of the footnote and using the entire FCTC text of article 22, with a slight adjustment for more clarity;
• Delete both the footnote and “as mutually agreed”, and using “consensual” and “report procedure”:
• Remove the footnote and reformulate.

Hopefully the negotiators will find a way to agree on one of these options to allow an agreement on Tuesday.

Run against time

The deputy director general of the WHO, Dr. Mike Ryan, said that the WHO secretariat “would do everything it takes to make them more time.”

“The reality is that we are against this moment now if you consider that many member states will have to consult their capitals … before the meeting (WHA) in May, Ryan told the WHO World Media Conference on Thursday.

“The Assembly is, conventionally, a meeting of health ministers and often involves heads of state … so that people who will conclude the agreement to the Assembly are at a higher level. Thus, negotiations earlier can be concluded, the sooner we can prepare this process. ”

While the negotiators “do not have to have all the” I “, they do not have to gain acceptance of each comma”, the text must still be subject to legal scope, said Ryan.

“The Member States will themselves have to make a judgment on their proximity. Bottom negotiators (at WHO headquarters in Geneva) are not negotiators.

“We will obviously offer them advice on deadlines and what is realistic and what can be done before the assembly. I am always someone who is very reluctant to admit that you will not do it, then add more time, because in my world, the work fills in time, and if you take more time, the work will simply extend to fill this time.”

However, he recognized that “there are real problems”, with unique words with political, ideological and legal meanings.

“The great thing we should celebrate is that there are currently more than 190 member states in a basement, trying to find a way to work together, trying to find a language that will protect eight and a half billion people from the next pandemic.

“We should celebrate the very fact that they are in the room, given everything that happens in the world, geopolitically and geo-economicly.”

Image credits: WHO.