Devex Newswire: Advocates, Big Pharma clash over pandemic treaty draft

You can’t please everyone — and apparently when it comes to the highly consequential, hotly contested pandemic treaty, you can’t please anyone. Also in today’s edition: USAID officially steps into the global fight to preserve democracy, and the Netherlands’ reputation as a localization pioneer takes some hits. + Listen to the latest episode of our weekly podcast series to get a recap of the top global development stories of the past week, including an exclusive story on withholding thousands of metric tons of food aid to Yemen. Indignation all around In the wake of enduring bitterness in the global south over the global north’s hoarding of COVID-19 vaccines, WHO’s pandemic treaty draft is a big deal — assuming, of course, it doesn’t get watered down. That’s the fear among advocates who hope the treaty ensures that the inequities of the last pandemic don’t resurface during the next inevitable pandemic. Their fears may be justified if current negotiations are any indicator. In the case of intellectual property waivers, for example, Mohga Kamal-Yanni of the People’s Vaccine Alliance argues that “The current wording does not provide a significant change in the status quo. Making the adoption of the waiver discretionary by using qualifiers such as ‘to extent necessary’ would make it difficult to apply [the IP] provision in practice.” But in a plot twist, my colleague Jenny Lei Ravelo writes that Big Pharma is just as unhappy with the language, claiming waivers would stifle innovation. Thomas Cueni of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations wrote in a statement that “It would be better to have no pandemic treaty than a bad pandemic treaty, which the draft circulated to member states clearly represents.” For bad or good, the issue of enforcement will continue to cast a pall over the ongoing discussions, although any legally binding treaty will be limited. That’s because contrary to widespread claims by many political conservatives, the treaty won’t infringe on national sovereignty by dictating lockdowns, mask-wearing, or other measures. Rather, it’s about ensuring international cooperation, equity, and transparency, but whether this pandemic draft has the teeth to do all that remains an open question — one that’s vexing all the players involved. Read: Advocates and Big Pharma both unhappy with latest pandemic treaty draft Another bureau for USAID USAID talks tough on democracy, but up until now, it hasn’t had the institutional gravitas to back it up. The agency’s bureaucratic muscle and financial firepower are overwhelmingly concentrated in other sectors, particularly health and humanitarian assistance, my colleague Michael Igoe writes. It adds up to a mismatch between what’s often framed as an existential struggle for the future of global democracy and an agency that spent just over 3% of its total budget on democracy, human rights, and governance in the 2022 fiscal year. But USAID’s new Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance, which began operating on Sept. 12, is an effort to elevate these issues inside the agency. “So much of our budget is earmarked and directed and carved up in all of these ways that really don’t speak to the needs and the challenges on the ground,” Shannon Green, who leads the bureau as assistant to the administrator, said Thursday at a launch event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Green said that two key priorities for the new bureau will be building the evidence base for more investment, while also prodding bureaus working on other issues to use their resources in ways that bolster democracy. “Even if we are effective beyond our wildest dreams, there will always be so much more health money and so much more humanitarian assistance money, so we have to be able to influence the way they’re spending that money and what they’re doing,” Green said. “That’s where the game-changing interventions are.” Read: USAID launches new bureau to elevate democracy efforts Not going Dutch Although the Netherlands only has a population of about 18 million citizens, the country is one of the very few to give almost 0.7% of its gross national income as foreign aid each year, giving it outsize sway in development circles. It’s also become an unlikely model for localization after it did away with a policy that barred organizations outside the Netherlands from bidding on the country’s foreign aid funding. Since then, it’s transformed from one of the laggards on localization to one of its leaders, writes Ingrid Gercama for Devex. But some say the Dutch are still lagging behind when it comes to truly relinquishing power. Yannick Du Pont, founder of Dutch NGO SPARK, says many fear that if they hand power to partners, “their business revenue will shrink.” He tells Ingrid there are still myriad barriers for local organizations, such as the fact that much of the process is still done in Dutch, not English. Alexander Arkadjevitsj Medik of Partos, which represents more than 100 Dutch NGOs, agrees that localization is not progressing as fast as some believe. “What you want to change is the deeper systems, the mentality, the attitude, and the value systems,” Medik says. “It is about how we in the Netherlands, a rich Western nation, have always been dominant in development cooperation with other countries in the global south. It is about anti-racism and about awareness about the colonial history of development aid.” Read: How the Netherlands has strived (and struggled) to localize (Pro) + Access all our exclusive reporting and analysis by starting your 15-day free trial of Devex Pro. Sour note Visceral images of African children in need, along with a parade of rock stars, were trotted out during the Live Aid concert in 1985, which was watched by 1.9 billion people. The concerts raised a huge sum of money for the famine in Ethiopia. But Live Aid’s legacy doesn’t stand up well to history, at least among development practitioners who view it as a cringeworthy example of white saviorism and poverty porn. Now, it’s being reported that the Live Aid concert is going to serve as the basis for a new musical in London. But some, like Jess Crombie of the University of the Arts in London, would prefer to keep the show in the past. “Live Aid was the apotheosis of the savior narrative,” she writes in a Devex opinion article. “There were no African performers in Live Aid, and the performers of color were in the significant minority. The decision-making team — [Bob] Geldof and Midge Ure — were white Europeans. And while videos of Ethiopian people were played, these were depictions of objects of suffering and need without the complications of showing people as actual humans.” “This event was about people like me — Western spectators — coming together in an act of performative solidarity,” she adds. Opinion: The Live Aid musical will continue a legacy of white saviorism The long and winding ‘Belt and Road’ The third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation took place in Beijing this week. Beyond the power politics projected by the host, President Xi Jinping, and guests including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a multitude of development projects were announced, and delegates from low- and middle-income countries left China with $97.2 billion in deals. “My biggest highlight from the forum has been the announcement of new financing windows around $48 billion each from China Development Bank and China Exim,” said the Overseas Development Institute’s Yunnan Chen, who followed the initiative since its inception. “These two policy banks have seen lending reduce to a trickle in the years after 2017,” Chen said. “This is a good sign that the taps might be turning back on for new development financing.” In other news The White House has prepared a sweeping $105 billion foreign aid package that includes $60 billion for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel. [ABC News] U.N. human rights chief Volker Türk urged for advancements in women’s sexual and reproductive health rights during a landmark conference in Geneva. [UN News] South Africa has secured $676 million in grants from high-income nations for its transition to green energy — but it is still only a fraction of the total package promised. [Reuters] Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.