'Third World Network' thinks the process for developing a final text of the Pandemic Treaty is compromised

Modern colonialism: fixing the process so the powerful entities have most of the say in the negotiations

TWN Info Service on Health Issues (Mar24/07)
18 March 2024
Third World Network

https://www.twn.my/title2/health.info/2024/hi240307.htm

WHO: INB negotiating modality proposes stage-managed text-based negotiation, compromises effective participation

Geneva, 17 March (TWN) – Stage-managed text-based negotiations in parallel sessions are the proposed modality for the 9^th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) on the pandemic instrument. This threatens to compromise the participation of Member States especially those having small delegations.

The 9^th INB meeting will take place at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva from 18 to 28 March in a hybrid mode.

According to the communication from the INB Bureau dated 14 March titled practical aspects, the drafting group will be invited to negotiate the revised draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.  Since the 7^th INB meeting, discussions have been on the draft negotiating text and there is no formal negotiating text agreed by Member States.

The communication on practical aspects also sets the following ground rules for the negotiations:

·         The drafting group will be invited to consider whether the text has reached an acceptable level of maturity and consensus. The Bureau will work with the Secretariat to propose real-time alternative texts as necessary.

·         The co-chairs may, as necessary, invite interested delegations to conduct informal consultations on specific matters within a limited time on the side-lines of the meeting, to support the work towards consensus.

·         The co-chairs will work towards possible ‘yellowing’ and ‘greening’ of text that enjoys common understanding and consensus.

·         Drafting group members will be strongly encouraged to work in an efficient manner and the co-chairs will enforce the time limits as follows: Regional/group interventions – 4 minutes; national interventions – 3 minutes.

These ground rules are silent on the placement of textual suggestions on various provisions of the draft negotiating text.  The co-chairs clarified this issue during the Bureau's briefing session held in the afternoon of 15 March.

The co-chairs clarified that the textual suggestions from Member States will be projected on- screen, separately below the relevant provisions of the draft negotiating text. The textual suggestions would be part of the draft negotiating text only if it enjoys a broad consensus.

Generally, text-based negotiations are Member States-led processes where participating Member States are free to propose textual suggestions, which will be projected on-screen as part of the negotiating text. It is the Member States themselves who decide whether to accept or reject various amendment proposals, or to work on compromise or alternate text.

The proposed modality for the textual negotiation departs from this practice and the Bureau acts as a gatekeeper, allowing only those texts that enjoy broad consensus to make it into the negotiating text. This is clear from the following statement of the Bureau: “The Bureau will work with the Secretariat to propose real time alternative texts as necessary.”

This would basically lead to the preservation of the Bureau’s text as the default text and few amendments to that text would be possible. That would lead to a situation where developing country Member States would be exposed to undue pressure to accept the text, which does not address their critical needs on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

The programme of work clearly shows that the Bureau is proposing to come out with a new draft text on 26 March. This means that all textual suggestions provided from 18 to 25 March will be unilaterally revised by the Bureau.

The Bureau has systematically prevented text-based negotiations on the proposed pandemic instrument since the publication of the Zero Draft of the pandemic instrument in February 2023 until now. There have been 8 meetings of the INB since the Zero Draft was published in various modes such as resumed sessions and drafting groups.

As reported earlier, the textual suggestions for Member States were not incorporated into the Bureau's draft negotiating text nor retained in brackets on the draft. After every meeting, either the Bureau or co-facilitators of the sub-groups would keep revising the draft without indicating which text suggestions from Member States have been incorporated and which rejected.

Member States were explicitly prevented from placing text during certain INB meetings including its 8^th meeting (19 February -2 March). However, it was decided during the 8^th INB meeting that text-based negotiation would take place during the 9^th INB meeting. Paragraph 5 of the report of the 8^th meeting states as follows:

“The INB requested the Bureau to develop a revised draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, to be considered by the INB at its ninth meeting, for textual negotiations.”

The proposed modality compromises this decision. Third World Network learned that there was no consultation with Member States regarding the modalities for the text-based negotiation. Member States received the proposed modality and further details only during the evening of 14 March and the following day’s briefing, two days prior to the commencement of negotiations.

Another concern is about the proposal to hold parallel meetings while the formal INB meeting is in session. The communication from the Bureau states: “The co-chairs may, as necessary, invite interested delegations to conduct informal consultations on specific matters within a limited time on the sidelines of the meeting, to support the work towards consensus”.

Many developing country delegations are small and are often represented by a single delegate. These delegations would not be in a position to attend these parallel sessions. Though there are assurances from the co-chairs that these proposals would be discussed in the drafting group the informal discussion in parallel meetings would exclude the small delegations from participating in such meetings and also bear the risk of such delegations coming under pressure to accept the consensus reached in those meetings without their participation.

It seems the Bureau's suggestion is based on a briefing paper submitted by a group of countries for the facilitation of negotiations. These countries include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Colombia, the European Union and its 27 Member States, Mexico, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, and Singapore. The following suggestions in the briefing paper might have led to the idea of parallel informal sessions:

·         Informal breakout groups: where a chairperson/s is specifically assigned the task of convening discussions on a specified topic with a view to finding convergence. Within these breakout groups is the possibility of even smaller ‘sub-groups’ to the breakout groups providing additional flexibility for the chairperson/s to enable focused discussions on specific issues in a manner deemed suitable. If relevant, facilitators other than the chairperson/s could be assigned to assist in such meetings. By way of precedence, this model is already used within the WGIHR (Working Group on the Amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005) for discussion of a number of articles including compliance and implementation.

·         Friends of the Chair groups, where members of the Bureau or Chair of breakout groups select specific key delegations to meet in a smaller setting to address a specific issues/s to help find convergence.

·         Bilateral meetings between the Bureau or Chair of breakout groups and key delegations, one at a time. This may include so-called 'confessionals' where delegations are given the chance to speak openly about where their limits are to be found with a view to the identification of possibilities for convergence or landing zones.

·         Additional groups such as ‘informal-informal’ groups, as a further tool to catalyse informal engagement in a flexible manner, and ranging from informal discussions in devoted meeting rooms to ‘huddles’ in the margins

Such a plethora of fragmented informal parallel meetings does not augur well for meaningful participation of developing country Member States, especially those with small delegations. Transparency of the negotiations is also compromised.

Schedule of Negotiations

The programme of work sets the following schedules for the negotiations:

18 March^: Articles 1, 2 and 3

19 March: Articles 4, 5 and 6

20 March: Articles 7, 8 and 9

21 March: Articles 10, 11 and 12

22 March: Articles 12 and 13

23 March: Articles 14, 15, 16 and 17

25 March: Articles 18, 19 and 20

26 March: Articles on institutional arrangements: newly revised draft of the pandemic instrument

27 March: Consideration of the revised draft and remaining articles

28 March: discussion on the way forward and report of the meeting.

The working hours are split into three sessions on each day, i.e. between 09:00 to 12:00, 13:00 to 16:00 and 16:30 to 18:30.

The often-cited reason cited for the stage-managed textual negotiations is to avoid the bulkiness of the negotiating text and to meet the target of finalising the negotiations prior to the upcoming World Health Assembly, which is to take place 27 May to 2 June. However, attempts to avoid proper textual negotiations following due process are increasing trust deficit and speculation among Member States with regard to the integrity of the process.+