Enshrining Inequity is Immoral: Vote No on the Pandemic Agreement, says AHF
21 Mayo 2024 - 12:22PM
Business Wire
As the final stage of negotiations of the World Health
Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement nears conclusion, the AIDS
Healthcare Foundation voices major concerns about the latest
Proposal for the Agreement.
Much has changed since March 30, 2021, when during the COVID-19
pandemic, leaders from Europe and other developed countries held
hands while touting commitments for an agreement guided by
“solidarity, fairness, transparency, inclusivity, and equity.” The
mood has since soured, with many of the world’s leading economies
now siding to protect the greedy corporate interests of
pharmaceutical companies.
Equity, which was once described as the heart of the proposed
agreement, runs the risk of becoming nothing more than a cliché, or
worse still – a punchline. Despite the agreement’s stated objective
of preventing, preparing, and responding to pandemics while being
guided by equity, at least some countries don’t seem to be serious
about turning this into a reality. Neither promises, charity, nor
voluntary obligations were sufficient to prevent or address the
human misery caused by global health inequity during COVID-19 and
other global health emergencies, and we don’t expect them to start
working miracles now.
This is why the signing of any pandemic agreement must be
grounded in clear commitments and binding obligations to
operationalize equity. The Pandemic Access and Benefit Sharing
System (PABS), under Article 12 of the pandemic agreement, is a
major way of addressing global health inequity. During the
pandemic, low and middle income countries (LMICs) were "forced to
be part of an unequal fight with major powers," wherein competition
for vital pandemic-related health products, including protective
equipment, reagents, diagnostics, life-saving treatment, and even
oxygen, exacerbated global health inequities and hindered an
effective global response to the crisis.
“At all stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, developing countries
struggled to obtain equitable access to all kinds of
pandemic-related health products. First there were shortages of
masks, diagnostics, ventilators, and oxygen, then vaccines, and
later, to effective therapeutics,” said Dr. Jorge Saavedra,
Executive Director of the AHF Global Public Health Institute. “All
the meanwhile, high-income countries were able to acquire and
retain much of the world’s supply, while the majority of the world
waited in the back of the line.”
Under PABS, parties are required to rapidly share biological
materials and genetic sequence data, which are critical for the
timely development of diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics.
Participation in this system requires that participants agree to
share a certain percentage of pandemic-related health products to
ensure they are equitably distributed, addressing the urgent needs
of all nations and safeguarding global health security.
Currently, fierce debate between high-income countries and the
rest of the world over Article 12 provisions has resulted in an
“amalgamation of text and brackets within brackets,” which has only
worsened as negotiations near completion. The current best-case
scenario in the most recent text will require that 20% (10% as a
donation and 10% at non-profit prices) of pandemic-related health
products be “made available for use on the basis of public health
risk and need. This is grossly insufficient because it leaves 80%
of critical vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics inaccessible to
LMICs which comprise approximately 85% of the world’s population.
The world-leading scientific journal, The Lancet, has described
this proposal as “shameful, unjust and inequitable.”
While we are encouraged by recent proposals in Article 12, which
would allow for the advanced release of pandemic-related health
products before a Public Health Emergency of International Concern
(PHEIC) is declared, and provisions on the promotion of specific
benefit sharing modalities to address prevention and preparedness
in addition to emergencies, we have serious doubts whether these
measures will ever be voted on in light of high-income countries’
competing interests.
“AHF was among the first organizations to promote and publish a
proposal for a new global public health convention, but the current
proposal for the pandemic agreement could do more harm than good by
enshrining inequity. As such, we consider that instrument as
immoral, and we call on member states to reject this agreement
unless meaningful binding provisions are added to guarantee
equity,” said AHF President Michael Weinstein.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the largest global AIDS
organization, currently provides medical care and/or services to
over 2 million clients in 46 countries worldwide in the US, Africa,
Latin America/Caribbean, the Asia/Pacific Region and Europe. To
learn more about AHF, please visit our website: www.aidshealth.org,
find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/aidshealth and follow us on
Twitter: @aidshealthcare and Instagram: @aidshealthcare
View source
version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240521048520/en/
Ged Kenslea, Senior Director, Communications, AHF +1 323
308 1833 work +1.323.791.5526 mobile gedk@aidshealth.org
Denys Nazarov, Director of Global Policy &
Communications, AHF +1.323.308.1829 denys.nazarov@ahf.org