This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:


peer-reviewed publication

trusted source


Pandemic treaty pressure is harmful to poorer countries, says expert

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Attempts by the WHO to push for an agreement in the Pandemic Treaty negotiations is detrimental to poorer countries, according to a leading global health expert.

Referring to the ongoing talks—which are reported to be stalling—the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO) recently said that "time is very short" and countries should get on board to reach an agreement by May 2024.

However, Professor Sarah Hodges from King's College London says that while preparations for another COVID type event are vital, pushing for a conclusion works against the interest of poorer countries. Negotiations started more than two years ago for an international accord aimed at ensuring countries are better equipped to deal with the next catastrophe, or to prevent it altogether.

"Given the increased chances of another pandemic, there is a compelling argument for expediting the treaty-making process to allow faster and more equitable access to life-saving medications. But whilst richer countries often boast extensive diplomatic teams with broad subject matter knowledge, many poorer countries are represented by single-person delegations lacking equivalent expertise. Even if they possess scientific proficiency, they may lack the technical legal resources required to properly produce enforceable proposals," says Prof. Hodges.

Plans were set to announce an agreement at May's World Health Assembly, but reports from the talks in Geneva suggest this is highly unlikely. Major sticking points in the negotiations include access to vaccines and treatments by poorer countries, while richer nations have concerns over how much money is being put into pandemic prevention.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO, recently told the global body's executive board that negotiations were in danger of becoming "a missed opportunity for which future generations may not forgive us."

The rhetoric that "time is very short" presents a significant danger, particularly for low- and (LMICs), says Professor Hodges.

"Pressure to act swiftly or risk missing out on the treaty's promise effectively warns LMICs that this is their sole opportunity, insisting they must conform to the timeline. However, this rapid pace raises concerns about what we refer to as 'time equity'––the fair allocation of time and resources for deliberation and decision-making among all stakeholders."

Writing in the journal PLOS Global Public Health, Professor Hodges and her University of Warwick colleagues Sharifah Sekalala, Shajoe Lake, and Yureshya Perera suggest the initial May 2024 deadline should be seen as a moment for reassessment, not a final agreement.

A consensus, they argue, could be reached on key issues that must be agreed upon by May—with a redesigned treaty process to effectively use the next three months.

They also suggest that some poorer countries could choose to focus on a few key objectives. These could include identifying at least three priority issues for immediate inclusion in the treaty, while deferring other matters to subsequent treaty protocols.

Priority areas highlighted by LMICs include and an equitable access and benefit-sharing system backed by commitments for sustainable financing for health system strengthening.

"Equity was the driving force behind countries' participation in negotiations, with the promise of a more just response to future pandemics. However, the process to design the instrument to achieve this does not align with this vision," says Professor Hodges.

"To design a treaty that delivers fair outcomes, attention must be given to both the process and the results. Focusing on these critical areas over the next three months will demonstrate a genuine commitment to crafting a that produces equitable outcomes. Otherwise, the past year would have been a costly misuse of resources."

More information: Sharifah Sekalala et al, Navigating time equity: Balancing urgency and inclusivity in pandemic treaty negotiations, PLOS Global Public Health (2024). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003118

Journal information: PLOS Global Public Health
Citation: Pandemic treaty pressure is harmful to poorer countries, says expert (2024, April 22) retrieved 22 July 2024 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

Nations fail to reach pandemic accord: talks to resume April


Feedback to editors