The world health assembly convened on 13 June 2015: Towards a long-term pandemic free-trade agreement for low-income countries
But just ratifying the pandemic treaty is not enough. Efforts to improve collaboration within governments is critical to keeping the world free from a future epidemic.
On 1 June, the final day of the World Health Assembly, the WHO announced the agreement and treaty extension.
Lawrence Gostin, a specialist in health law and policy at Georgetown University, was closely following the negotiations. But the new deadline was a good outcome. It showed that the political will to try and get this accomplished is still there.
“One year is a good, reasonable time” to conclude the negotiations, says KM Gopakumar, a researcher with the Third World Network, a research and advocacy organization focused on development in low-income countries in Penang, Malaysia. He says that the legitimacy of the process could be compromised if discussions were hurried to meet the original deadline.
Although the negotiations for a pandemic treaty are ongoing, governments should already be considering how they will implement one. As a legal scholar who has acted as a negotiator for the South Korean government in free-trade agreements and advised corporate clients on how to comply with international treaties, I know that signing up is just the start.
Several delegates speaking at the assembly said that the adoption of the amendments would re-energize the efforts to forge a pandemic treaty. Mekdes Daba, Ethiopia’s minister of health, speaking on behalf of a large group of African member states said the conference will create a important moment to speed up the discussions in the agreement.
But not all observers are optimistic about the treaty’s future. It’s possible that they could eventually approve some sort of agreement, says the founder of the public-health think-tank. “But the question is whether it will represent a meaningful step change for equity or have any commitment to accountability.”
I have seen many countries conclude ambitious treaty negotiations, only to fail to comply with the obligations. Some countries that have promised to avoid subsidies still give tax breaks to domestic businesses, while others take advantage of exemptions.
That’s a lot to ask. How can countries be made to comply? International treaties, unlike domestic laws, have no mechanisms to enforce them. There are no penalties for breaching these laws.
Other treaties have included incentives. An independent committee can be established to monitor compliance with respect to nuclear or chemical weapons. Although not included in the current draft, such a clause could be added as an amendment in the future.
Sharing information about compliance transparently also increases the likelihood that a nation will do the right thing. The member states are required to notify each other of domestic laws relevant to the treaty. There is a requirement for reporting and sharing information in the draft of the treaty. It’s not clear whether this will be enough.
Treaty compliance can not be guaranteed even by adding all these mechanisms. And, in my experience, most breaches happen for more mundane reasons.
Collaboration in the Post-Preemptive Age of the Internet, with an Emphasis on the Future of Global Health Care and Emerging Statistical Physics
The ministries in the same government are often unable to work together. It’s not the top of every ministry’s agenda to have a Pandemic Preparedness. Capacity building in LMICs and hiring extra health-care personnel in case of a future flu are things that the treasury may not be interested in spending money on.
Losing royalties might make it difficult for ministries to convince private firms to comply with the treaty. It is possible that ministries of justice are hesitant to give reviews after domestic laws have changed.