Helen Clark to WHA: ‘Don’t take too long’ in negotiating pandemic instrument

Countries need to work faster in implementing the recommendations of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, such as in negotiating a new legal instrument for pandemic preparedness and response, Helen Clark has said.

“Some things are happening, but they're not happening fast enough,” Clark, former panel co-chair, said Monday during a Chatham House-hosted event as the panel launched its latest report tracking progress against its recommendations published in May 2021.

The panel recommended that countries with high vaccination coverage redistribute at least 1 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses to 92 low- and middle-income countries under the COVAX Advance Market Commitment by Sept. 1. But almost three months after, that call remains unfulfilled, with high-income countries having delivered just 256.5 million doses out of the 1.49 billion doses they’ve committed to share as of Nov. 16.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of doses of COVID-19 vaccines are left unused by high-income countries. The United Kingdom destroyed 600,000 doses of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine after it expired in August.

Countries have also not yet fully funded the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator, or ACT-A, nor have they agreed to a waiver of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, at the World Trade Organization — and it’s unclear if countries would reach consensus at the upcoming WTO ministerial conference. Added to this, they also haven’t established a Global Health Threats Council or adopted a “Pandemic Framework Convention” yet.

Clark said the panel also had “less engagement” on its calls to redesign ACT-A and its vaccines pillar, COVAX, into “truly global public goods mechanisms financed through global public investment.” Donor-based models have shown to not work in the current pandemic, and therefore won’t work in the future, she said.

“We need end-to-end solutions which can get these goods out to where they are needed in a timely fashion,” she added.

But the panel is seeing some support for some of its recommendations, such as in holding a special session of the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a political declaration at the heads of state and government level to reform the global health security architecture. The panel hopes that would lead to the creation of a Global Health Threats Council. The panel is also seeing some support for the creation of a dedicated financing mechanism for pandemic preparedness and response, and in strengthening the World Health Organization, Clark said.

There is also a lot of interest now in a new legal instrument, which will be discussed at a special session of the World Health Assembly next week. Clark called on countries to “please act” and “don’t take too long” in negotiating one, urging them to “spend less time debating commas in committees.”

“I would be inclined if I was negotiating to start narrow, but have it as a framework on which you can build protocols ... later on,” she said.

The panel’s recommendations was for a pandemic convention to be adopted by November 2021, which some thought was ambitious. But Clark said it was doable, citing the example of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, in which countries agreed on two conventions on nuclear safety within five months of that event.

A convention could spell out the responsibilities of member states and international organizations, and fill gaps in existing legal frameworks such as the International Health Regulations.

Clark said the WHO needs to have the power to access the site of a disease outbreak immediately, with “no questions asked,” publish the information it receives without seeking a country’s permission, and be able to act in a precautionary manner. But at the moment, the IHR doesn’t give it that power or authority to act decisively.

“I've been on number of panels, open panels, with Gro Harlem Brundtland, who was the director-general of WHO when the SARS epidemic broke out, and she says that if she had had to operate under the current IHR, she could not have operated as decisively as she did,” Clark said.