Letzter Versuch eines Pandemieabkommens: Was es regelt und wo es hakt
Published: Sunday, Apr 28th 2024, 09:20
Zurück zu Live Feed
The corona pandemic has turned people's lives upside down worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 member countries want to be better prepared for possible future pandemics with a new international agreement. Monday's negotiations in Geneva are seen as the last attempt to reach an agreement. What the planned pandemic agreement is all about.
What exactly is the agreement supposed to regulate?
The demands were extensive: that more vaccines be reserved for distribution in poor countries. That the production of vaccines can be boosted worldwide as quickly as possible, regardless of patent rules. That pharmaceutical companies should give away part of their production at low cost with government support for research. That a global supply chain and logistics network ensures that every country gets what it needs. That contracts for materials and vaccines are disclosed so that the highest bidder does not get the most, and much more.
What problems were there during the coronavirus pandemic?
Mistakes were made around the world during the coronavirus pandemic. China, for example, was late in providing information about the virus, and some countries decided on their own to impose travel restrictions and containment measures. Supply chains collapsed and governments fought over mask packages. The German government also imposed an export ban on protective equipment for two weeks. When the vaccine finally became available, rich countries snapped up most of it. While the second or third vaccination was already being administered in many places, poorer countries were still waiting for the first delivery. Even India, where a lot of vaccine was produced for export, suddenly imposed an export ban due to its own high infection figures. The original idea behind the agreement was to prevent this from happening again.
How are the negotiations going?
Tough. At the end of March, the fronts were completely hardened. That is why a new draft is now on the table, which has been shortened by a third to 23 pages. Particularly controversial details are now to be clarified in the course of the year. Organizations and some countries are protesting because important provisions for them have fallen by the wayside. "It will be difficult," said one negotiator in Geneva. "Pessimism is a negotiating tactic that the world really can't afford," said Michelle Childs from the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative organization, which campaigns for equal opportunities for poorer countries. The agreement is to be adopted at the WHO annual meeting in Geneva at the end of May/beginning of June.
Wo hakt es?
It is controversial whether and how the pharmaceutical industry should be obliged to release patents and share know-how for the production of vaccines and medicines with others. The pharmaceutical association IFPMA only wants voluntary agreements. Poorer countries do not want to commit to pandemic preparedness with investments if it is not clear how they will be supported financially. The amount of diagnostics, medicines and vaccines to be distributed free of charge or at low cost in poor countries is controversial. Because China refused entry to international experts searching for the origin of the virus for months, some wanted a regulation that would prevent this from happening in future.
Will the WHO then take over the global management of pandemics with such an agreement?
The agreement only comes into force in those countries whose parliaments ratify it. Governments would enter into obligations, but there are no sanctions. Countries would probably only have to report to each other on a regular basis, which is intended to build up pressure. The latest draft explicitly states that nothing in the agreement should be interpreted as giving the WHO the power to impose lockdowns, vaccinations or travel restrictions on countries. In response to a critical petition in September 2023, the Federal Ministry of Health wrote: "Neither fundamental rights nor human rights are restricted by the WHO pandemic treaty."
Is the agreement primarily about justice for poorer countries?
No, it has benefits for people worldwide. If a pandemic is better managed in all countries, in the best-case scenario a virus cannot spread so much. Then there would be no need for such drastic restrictions as in the coronavirus pandemic. The WHO should also set up a supply chain network so that all countries can get the material they need quickly in the event of a pandemic and there is no shortage of protective equipment or other material anywhere.
©Keystone/SDA
German 
English 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic