Austria has proposed the creation of a new standing committee on pandemic and emergency preparedness and response of the executive board of the World Health Organization. The goal: to strengthen the board’s “effectiveness and responsiveness.”
Sign up for Devex CheckUp
The must-read weekly newsletter for exclusive global health news and insider insights.
While some member states expressed their support for its creation, some wanted more clarity on its work. Here’s what’s known so far about the committee:
What is its function?
According to the proposal’s white paper, the committee “would review, provide guidance, and, as appropriate, make recommendations to the Executive Board regarding ongoing work concerning policy proposals on pandemic and emergency preparedness and response,” as well as after the declaration of a public health emergency of international concern, or PHEIC. It may also provide guidance to the WHO director-general in the case of a PHEIC “upon request.”
How will it be composed?
Under the current proposal, committee membership will be limited to board members, two from each of WHO’s six regions, and chaired by one the board’s vice-chairs. It is proposed to meet “at least twice annually,” and for these meetings to take place before the official sessions of the board. In the event of a PHEIC declaration, it is proposed to meet within 24 hours of the declaration.
What are member states’ concerns regarding its establishment?
At the ongoing 150th meeting of WHO’s executive board, some member states expressed support, “in principle,” for the creation of the committee, but said further discussions are needed to agree on the details and ensure consensus. Some member states want clarity on its terms of reference and added value. Some want clarity on its scope of work and how that differs or relates to the work of the WHO Executive Board and the emergency committee of the international health regulations.
Ghana said that such a committee should be inclusive and transparent, for its meetings to allow participation of all interested member states, and that it should not make decisions without reference to the executive board. Kenya recommended that its terms of reference also clarify the “lines of communication” between the committee and WHO management, saying all reports or recommendations of the committee should go through the executive board and not directly to the WHO director-general.
In response to member states’ concerns, Austria emphasized that further consultations on the terms of reference will be made to ensure clarity. The representative also clarified that the declaration of a PHEIC is “unaffected” by the committee, as the committee will only meet after such a declaration has been made, and that it can’t bypass the executive board. And while it has limited membership, he said it is open for consultation for all member states.
As for its added value, Austria said the board had its shortcomings in the past two years under the COVID-19 pandemic, and forming a committee would ensure rapid consultation between the board and the director-general.
Last chance for WHO funding reform, lead diplomat warns
Björn Kümmel says he is sick of delay tactics standing in the way of an increase in membership fees to the U.N. health agency.
In the review conducted by the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, some member states have expressed concerns on the “lack of engagement of the EB during the pandemic.” A special session of the board regarding WHO’s COVID-19 response took place almost nine months after the WHO director-general declared COVID-19 a global health threat.
What does WHO think of the proposal?
WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appears supportive of the committee, believing it will be helpful to WHO and won’t undermine its work. In his remarks Wednesday, he expressed his interest to have more engagement with the board, which meets only twice a year.
“For me, having a strong relationship, strong engagement between the [WHO] Secretariat and the governance, without meddling in each other's affairs, of course, is very important,” he said, describing the standing committee as a “low-hanging fruit, which could actually be tested during this period.”
“The closer we are with our governance, the stronger the Secretariat becomes, the better that the support we need from the governance also comes. So I go for constant engagement because of that not only for the standing committee, but other mechanisms also which you are trying to install,” he told member states.
What’s the status of the proposal?
Due to lack of consensus, WHO Executive Board Chair Dr. Patrick Amoth suspended discussion of the agenda Wednesday, which will instead resume later in the week to allow more time for informal consultations among member states.
About the author
Jenny Lei Ravelo@JennyLeiRavelo
Jenny Lei Ravelo is a Devex Senior Reporter based in Manila. She covers global health, with a particular focus on the World Health Organization, and other development and humanitarian aid trends in Asia Pacific. Prior to Devex, she wrote for ABS-CBN, one of the largest broadcasting networks in the Philippines, and was a copy editor for various international scientific journals. She received her journalism degree from the University of Santo Tomas.
