In a significant move for global health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has adopted a new legally binding agreement. This is to bolster international preparedness for future pandemics. The World Health Assembly passed the accord in Geneva after three years of intense negotiations. It was met with applause from member countries. However, the absence of the United States, the WHO's largest financial contributor, has raised concerns about the treaty's ultimate efficacy.
A Victory for Public Health and Multilateral Action
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus hailed the agreement as "a victory for public health, science and multilateral action." He asserted that it will collectively enhance the world's ability to protect against future pandemic threats. The pact's core objective is to ensure equitable global access to essential drugs, therapeutics, and vaccines during the next health crisis. A key provision mandates participating manufacturers to allocate a target of 20% of their pandemic-related medical countermeasures to the WHO. This includes vaccines, medicines, and tests, ensuring poorer nations are not left behind as they were during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Shadow of US Absence
The US's withdrawal from discussions undeniably challenges the effectiveness of the newly adopted pact. President Donald Trump initiated a 12-month process of disengaging the US from the WHO. This would render the US unbound by the new agreement. This is a significant point of contention, especially given the billions of dollars the US poured into vaccine development during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the pact lacks explicit penalties for member states failing to implement its provisions. This leads some critics to question its enforcement mechanisms.
In a video address to the Assembly, Robert F Kennedy Jnr, US Health & Human Services Secretary, strongly criticised the WHO and the new agreement. He argued that the organisation "has doubled down with the pandemic agreement, which will lock in all of the dysfunction of the WHO pandemic response," stating that the US would not participate.
Divided Reactions to the Pandemic Accord
The vote on the agreement saw 124 countries in favour, none against, and 11 abstentions. These included Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, and Iran. Some health experts lauded the treaty as a crucial step towards greater fairness in global health, while others expressed reservations. This came particularly after the stark inequities observed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Michelle Childs, policy advocacy director at the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, acknowledged the pact's "critical provisions, especially in research & development, that – if implemented – could shift the global pandemic response towards greater equity." However, Gian Luca Burci, an academic adviser at the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, described the agreement as an "empty shell." He suggested it is merely a "good starting point" that requires significant development and more substantial commitments. Helen Clark, co-chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, echoed this sentiment. She called it a "foundation to build from" and highlighted remaining gaps in finance and equitable access.
Funding Challenges
The pact's full implementation hinges on the agreement of an annexe concerning the sharing of pathogenic information. Negotiations for this crucial component are set to commence in July. They aim to present it to the World Health Assembly for adoption. A Western diplomatic source suggested this process could take up to two years.
The WHO is grappling with a funding crisis in the face of the US's intended withdrawal. The substantial financial contributions of the US are also in question. However, signs of international solidarity emerged with pledges exceeding $170 million from countries like China, Qatar, and Switzerland during Tuesday's assembly. Host Switzerland committed $40 million, Sweden $13.5 million, Angola $8 million, and Qatar $6 million, among other contributions. China's earlier pledge of $500 million is still being calculated.
Member countries also accepted a 20% increase in mandatory fees over the next two years. This is to further mitigate the anticipated financial shortfall. These efforts demonstrate a collective commitment to the WHO's vital work. Yet, the long-term impact of the US's absence on the organisation's financial stability and the effectiveness of the new pandemic accord remains a significant concern. The journey towards truly equitable global health preparedness is far from over.