The WHO pandemic treaty: where are we on our scepticism?

• Published in: BMJ global health 2023-06, Vol.8 (6), p.e012636
• Main Authors: Evaborhene, Nelson Aghogho, Oga, Jessica Oreoluwa, Nneli, Onyeka Vivian, Mburu, Sheila
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Commentary; Cooperation; COVID-19; COVID-19 vaccines; Epidemics; Humans; Infections, diseases, disorders, injuries; Intellectual property; International agreements; Manufacturing; Pandemics; Pharmaceutical industry; Political leadership; Social responsibility; Supplies; Supply chains; Vaccines; World Health Organization
• ISSN: 2059-7908; 2059-7908
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012636

[...]when COVID-19 struck, the IHRs did not contain specific binding provision for equitable access to MCMs, and have been described as ‘a specialism that has largely retained a 19th century colonial framework of international cooperation for disease control’.2 Evidently, countries with the least economic and political bargaining power continue to suffer, as nationalism trumped over solidarity—and the global health community scrambled to deliver diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines in an equitable manner that would prevent needless loss of lives. On top of that, the return of balance of power in politics in the international system and the fluid political nature of global health generate so many uncertainties because more often than not, global health aid is a tool for international diplomacy as much as for human health.14 While there are calls for an independent body to monitor the alignment of countries’ commitments with their pandemic preparedness plans, such actions would benefit risk assessment activities including surveillance.9 15 However, as we queried in our earlier analysis,5 it is still vague what incentives the pandemic treaty could offer political leaders that would make them behave differently during another outbreak, and choose not to restrict export or hoard vaccines and instead prioritise populations who are at risk thousands of miles away. Or how pharmaceutical companies who have refused to share technologies and are well suited in protecting their shareholders’ dividends would balance their corporate social responsibility with profit generation when supplying the non-donated 10% stipulated in the zero-draft text. [...]contrary to what we may expect, without caution, certain types of solutions could deflect our attention from the deeper implications of the prevailing order that embodies logics which undermine health equity. In this case, as Krikorian and Torreele argue, ‘a dose of charity associated with the traditional market approach risks once again diverting us from the profound moral, political, and economic questioning of the way we finance, govern, and ensure the development and use of essential health tools’.16 Yet, if COVID-19 revealed anything globally, it is the need to boost production of biotechnology solutions where they are needed domestically in order to strengthen access and supply chains for all types of pandemic-related products during emergencies and interpandemic periods.