Pandemic Treaty URGENT UPDATE! November 12, 2024 Is WHO INB DEADLINE To Convene "Special Session" To Agree On Pandemic Treaty In December! It's Getting Real.
We made it easy for you to protest a special session of the INB Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to have an early vote on the Pandemic Treaty in December! Sign The Demand Inside TO STOP THE TREATY!
NEW BIG URGENT NOTICE ON TREATY:
NEW NEWS! URGENT - Pandemic Treaty set for end of Year - sign to STOP!
Why sign? What’s this about?
Well, The Globalists Are Accelerating Fast!
Like WARP SPEED!
Alert, alert! The World Health Organization is accelerating the pandemic treaty negotiations and want to convene a “special session” by November 12, 2024 to usher it in
The letter below rejecting the special session by November 12, & rejecting the entire pandemic treaty in full is being sent to WHO top staff, INB, all delegates.
You can sign below to prevent the World Health Organization, Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) 11-12 special session by November 12, 2024! PLEASE SHARE!
Sign here: https://whowatch.org/preventinbspecialsession
HEADS UP: World Health Organization Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) Is Meeting Up For The Pandemic Agreement Negotiations Until Friday
But Alert, alert!
Did you know that the World Health Organization is accelerating the pandemic treaty negotiations and many Member States want to convene a “special session” by November 12, 2024 to usher it in by December, before the end of the year, 2024?
(WHO) (INB) Is Meeting Up For The Pandemic Agreement Negotiations Until Friday Sept 20
They all agree to pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) or bust!
But the real news is that this past week, when they met up mostly in secret, the part that was revealed showed that the WHO and Member States have decided that November 12 is the cutoff for countries & WHO to decide if they will hold a “special session” in December 2024 to agree to adopt the Pandemic Treaty!
We got you the news asap (and a way to have noble civil combat of the rush job on the pandemic treaty) and ask you all to please share far and wide to try to stop this special session.
We made a new demand for you to sign below that will be open to sign and share up until INB 12 deadline on November 12, 2024.
If we act in UNISON to stop the special session and make noise these next critical weeks we have a good shot at defeating a LOT of the UN and WHO schemes.
We made it easy for you to be involved at this critical time!
Feel free to speak up NOW, while there is still time to influence the decisions!
Stop the INB special session to seal the deal on the treaty!
To anyone who knows about the treaty, it appears the globalists want to enslave everyone with draconian Babylonian slave driving techniques in treaty form.
The treaty will bolster the 2005 IHR International Health Regulations, and it’s contentious 2024 amendments, which ensures member states to abide by the rules of engagement for the purpose to “surveil, detect and prevent” pandemics.
If these documents proceed unchallenged we are concerned that there may be very high potentiality of creating more fake PHEIC pandemics, more oppressive global censorship laws, digital ID, pathogen sharing, digital surveillance laws and more!
LET’S LOVE & UNITE FOR THE FIGHT! CRITICAL TWO WEEKS INCOMING - SIGH, SHARE AND SUPPORT - ITS CRITICAL AT THIS STAGE IN THE GAME!
URGENT! VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE:
ALERT: THE NEXT 2 WEEKS ARE ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL FOR HUMANITY TO PROTEST TO TOP DECISION MAKERS - THAT IS, IF WE CARE ENOUGH TO TRY TO STOP THE PANDEMIC TREATY!
IOJ ALERT - Important excerpt From the WHO INB session Sept 9-20, 2024:
“We need to be able to finalize these negotiations as soon as possible because the world needs a pandemic agreement either before the end of the year or by May 2025…. If we want to adopt the Pandemic Agreement before the end of the year, let's not forget that the decision to call a special session of WHA must be taken on 12 November (2024), so we don't have much time. This means that the next two weeks will be critical. We need to make progress in the negotiations, without progress in the next two weeks, we will not be able to achieve a text that satisfies all the member states.”
The long version of the video is located here: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/e/e_inb-11.html
This is why IOJ is so frantic in letting everyone know what is happening and that we still have a possible, but very short, chance to STOP the nonsensical pandemic treaty!
Sign the demand and share it far and wide! These letters can work! IOJ got the only country in the world to break consensus and drop the treaty this way, and we can help others!
The globalists are accelerating more quickly than people realize!
IT IS SO URGENT WE WILL REPEAT: Sign below to prevent the INB 11-12 special session by November 12, 2024!
Link To Sign The Demand: https://whowatch.org/preventinbspecialsession
Here’s the documentation for the INB Pandemic agreement:A/INB/11/1
Provisional agenda
A/INB/11/2
Draft programme of work
A/INB/11/2 Rev.1
Updated programme of work: Week 2
A/INB/11/INF./1
Information document on the legal architecture of the proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement
A/INB/11/INF./2
Information document on complementarity and coherence between the amended International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, and the proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement
A77/10
Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response
Or if you would like here’s James Roguski’s summary of the new INB documentation regarding the pandemic treaty, he gives more details, which are provided here with the latest update. Remember to protest before or after going to read more about the treaty!
*The end*
also sign to support 2 Bills for US to exit UN: preventgenocide2030.org
Other Related Articles By IOJ:
Stop the Pandemic Bill in Canada!
For those diehards out there who would like to read the entire transcript, enjoy reading through below:
IOJ Media (00:00)
Good morning.
Good
Is this cool? Yes, sweet.
Can we start?
Your Excellencies, Honourable Ministers, Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good morning, good afternoon and good evening. It is with great pleasure that I welcome you all to the eleventh meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
As you may recall at our tenth meeting, the following decision was taken with respect to the election of the Bureau.
and INB elected Ambassador Antle, Emperor of France, as co -chair on interim basis. At this time and following informal discussions amongst interested delegations and as communicated informally through the regional coordinators, I understand that there is agreement.
for Ambassador Antle Ampuru to be elected as co -chair of the INB. I would like to invite the INB to proceed with the election of the co -chair by acclamation.
is the NB Ridge.
So it is so decided. So you actually left quite quickly. So I'm most happy.
to offer Ambassador Ampreu my congratulations on her election. And on behalf of the Bureau, we look forward to continuing to work with her in this important role. Before we give our remarks, as co -chairs, I'd like to invite Dr. Mark Ryan to say a few words. Good morning, everybody.
First of all, greetings from Dr. Tedras. He'll be along very soon. He's actually en route and returning from the Sudan. So he'll be here later today. But we wanted to take the opportunity to congratulate Anne -Claire on her election or selection as co -chair and has an incredible background in public health and in global health. And I remember Ebola times as coordinating Ebola responses and COVID. So we have someone who has real...
not only policy experience but practical experience of coordinating national and international response. So it's fantastic to have you up there with Precious, who I've worked with for more years than I care to recall. So, personal, delighted to see and clear the role. I suppose it sets out the task for today. Everyone's back. It's like being back the first day after the holidays. Some people here, well...
Some of us are old enough to be sending grandchildren to first day at school, some are young enough to be sending their children. So this is the first day of a new term. And with the ongoing impact situation, H5N1, the world out there is not stable and requires, I think, the group here to find the necessary solutions to provide the kind of governance that's going to be needed in the 21st century.
to manage these emerging threats and more particularly the next pandemic. So we're in very, very important window of opportunity here and I leave it to the member states and to our co -chairs and vice -chairs to guide us through the next few months with the personal hope that we could get this done by the end of the year. But that's for the member states to decide how close we are. Thank you.
Thank you, Mike. I'll then hand over to Antle to say a few words. Thank you, thank you, co -chair. Thank you, precious. Nice to see you again here in this room. And I would like to thank all the member states for their confidence. I'm aware that it is a difficult task, but I am confident along with my co -chair, precious.
and the vice chairs who are very committed to these negotiations. If I may, a few personal thoughts at the start of the INB 11. Of course, we will move forward with the agenda, but at this stage, if I may, I will give you a few personal thoughts. First of all, for the resumption of negotiations,
It's imperative to guarantee trust between member states and between member states and the Bureau and the Secretariat, which I would like to thank for the hard work done during the summer, especially to prepare the interactive dialogues and the IND11. You did a very good job. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you to the team. The need for trust.
has often been mentioned in this room during previous sessions and I think it's important. The trust is based on listening, respect, transparency, and also the spirit of Geneva. And I invite all the member states to keep this in mind for the weeks and months ahead as we finalize the negotiations.
Secondly, the revision of the IHR and its adoption last May at the WHA showed that it is possible. We need to be able to finalize these negotiations as soon as possible because the world needs a pandemic agreement either before the end of the year or by May 2025.
If we want to adopt the Parliamentary Agreement before the end of the year, let's not forget that the decision to call a special session of WHA must be taken on 12 November, so we don't have much time. This means that the next two weeks will be critical. We need to make progress in the negotiations without
progress in the next two weeks, we will not be able to achieve a text that satisfies all the member states. As the IHR negotiations have shown, anything is possible, but this requires flexibility on the part of all the member states, and I do mean all of them. Without flexibility, we cannot move forward. Finally,
Over the next two weeks, we will have one drafting group with translation according to the program adopted at the INB 10, but we invite you to have informal discussions among yourselves. Depending on the articles, the Bureau is of course available to organize informal consultations if necessary, but first, you need to discuss among yourselves.
And I will invite you to discuss with the stakeholders whom I'd like to thank for their commitment and they are in the room this morning. So we have the opportunity to come back to each of these points in the coming days and in the meantime I would like to express my gratitude for your confidence and your commitment to this important negotiations. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Antler. Just a recap, we are aware that some of you attended the Shepard meeting and could not participate in the interactive dialogues. But I must say we actually had a productive session and very positive outcome for the
two days we heard from various experts and resource persons about how innovative measures can help us reach the finish line. When we discuss PAPS, when we discuss Article 4 and 5, we also heard about how some of the issues that were emerging in these discussions can be considered. But of course we leave it up to you members' days.
especially for One Health, a number of country experiences were shared, and also how important cross -sector collaboration is important. Not one member state said One Health was not important. I think there is an understanding that yes, it is. The question is how best can you address the outstanding issues?
We've also heard that during the discussions, we do not want a fragmented legal regime system. And we're going to have to find solutions to all those and try to find some ways in which the language that can be incorporated takes into account some of the advice that were given by resource persons. But we also heard that
Some of the definition of terms that have been agreed to and adopted in the IHR will not be cut and paste. And clearly it cannot be cut and paste. But we have to look at systematically how well will we do this. But bearing in mind that we want a future proof instrument. We do not want to come back and have to amend or change whatever is agreed to.
With that, some of the experts, as you heard, is that we want expeditious implementation where there will be no delays. But what does that mean? And what will that translate into? Again, what does universality mean? And some said it's a fallacy, others said it's desirable. So we'll have to look at what is it that's workable. But it's clear that we
we need singularity in the manner in which these different instruments will have to come together. There are some who said it's advisable that we continue to engage, but we also recognize work that has been done, look at governance mechanism, look at practicality of implementation, resource constraints of different countries, and also recognition that complementarity
does not necessarily mean similarity. And what, in essence, does that mean? For purposes of drafting and other things that we have to take into account. So there were questions also from different stakeholders. Of course, the different experts come from different perspectives and they may not necessarily agree, but they gave us useful guidance on how well to proceed. So on that note, I would like us now to proceed.
adopt the agenda. Let us now proceed with the consideration of agenda contained in document
So my notes still say ten. So my culture is quite awake. She woke me up. A -slash -I -N -B -slash -eleven -slash -one. Shall I take it that the meeting is prepared to adopt the agenda?
I see no request for the floor. It is so decided. So the Bureau has consulted and drawn up the program of work for this meeting, which is available in document A -11 -2. The program of work is based on our discussion at INB 10. So last Friday we circulated by email to all of you the
practical aspects in the conduct of the meeting, which I will not repeat in order to be efficient in our work. So does the INB agree to follow the program of work as contained in document A -INB -11 -2 on the understanding that the program of work is indicative and any changes will be communicated to delegations by email?
I see no objection. I would like to thank you. So in line with the program of work and practical aspects, the Bureau is proposing that the working hours are from 9 to 12 .30 and 14 hours to 17 hours 30, Central European Summer Time.
We'll use the traffic light system in view of the very limited time before us and the co -chairs will enforce the time limit through the traffic light. And where the vice -chairs will be leading discussions, I think the same will follow. I would like to remind you that delegations should deliver their speech at moderate speech. That will allow for interpretation and ensure that the messages convey clearly and accurately.
So as a guide, it takes about three minutes to deliver 330 words. So we'd like to really appeal to you to follow those guidelines. Delegates that are participating virtually are reminded that in order to proper and appropriate sound quality for the benefit of participants as well as interpreters,
Please use proper equipment and ensure you have good connection. So the minimum requirements are that you must have a USB connected, unidirectional microphone, headphones, a strong and stable internet connection. So please work in a quiet location and ensure that sound quality is reliable and interpreters can do their work.
and that it does not pose a risk to interpreters auditory health. So if they do, they will suspend the service, as we've noticed in the past. So kindly send your statements in advance to enable their work. So with that, I see no objection. We shall proceed accordingly and consider agenda item one. I'll hand over to my co -chair Antle.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Co -Chair. Before moving on to the consideration of the agenda item two, maybe some member states would like to take the floor. I want to check before opening the discussion regarding the item two, we will start with the legal architecture followed by the complementarity between the IHR and the pandemic agreement.
I just want to check if some member states would like to take the floor for opening statement, which are not necessary maybe, but just to check.
I see Japan.
Thank you. Thank you, Co -Chair. As an opening statement, let me express our appreciation for the Bureau members of each region and the Secretariat for their dedication and hard work to date towards restarting the INB process. Especially my delegation, I congratulate Ambassador Ambro of France for assuming a very important job.
of becoming one of the co -chair and also two ambassador for the debut of Australia who will be coming the vice chair replacing Japan. We fully support the two co -chairs and your leadership in the discussion ahead of us. Since this is the first time that I myself participate in the meeting and some of the members of the delegation
have been replaced, let me reiterate my delegation's resolution that we will constructively engage with all of the member states on this very important round of discussion.
Even after the COVID -19 pandemic, there continues to exist risks in the world, such as the spread of infectious diseases with enormous global impact, which require concerted response by the global community.
Let me touch upon one particular topic which is facing every one of us. Currently, the outbreak of -POCS has been declared by WHO as a public health emergency of international concern. Japan shares concerns of all countries which are suffering and struggling to stop the spread of -POCS. In response to a request from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to donate
about 3 million doses of vaccines and needless manufacturers in Japan. We are coordinating with the DRC government and WHO secretariat to support their response to this infectious disease.
Today, as we begin important round of INB 11, we are supposed to focus on the topic surrounding some articles that particularly need deep dive. To discuss these topics, Japan would like to particularly constructively engage with all of the member states. I thank you, Mr. Misko, Chair.
Thank you, Japan. Anyone else? No.
Okay, European Union.
Dear colleagues, we're very pleased to be meeting again and look forward to continuing to work together towards the adoption of a meaningful pandemic agreement. I'd like to start by thanking the Bureau and the Secretariat for their efforts in moving us forward and for organizing the recent and very useful interactive dialogues. These dialogues have amply shown that engaging with experts is essential in order to reach well -informed decisions.
They also made clear that some of the issues that we're trying to tackle are highly complex, in particular in relation to the PAPs, and will need adequate time for their final establishment. We also want to congratulate the new Bureau members, Ambassador Anne -Claire Amprou and Fleur Davis, and we look forward to working with you. We recall and welcome the successful adoption of the amendment to the IHR, as has been mentioned.
and we hope this will help to catalyze further progress also in the ION -B. And we are confident that by building on the progress we've achieved until now, we'll be able to reach a successful conclusion to the pandemic agreement with meaningful operational provisions on PPR. Current reality reminds us, of course, of the importance of our endeavor. The MPOC's outbreak, as my Japanese colleague mentioned,
illustrates the importance of a pandemic agreement that will effectively cover and address the full PPR cycle. We thank the WHO for presenting the Global Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan in this context. As in past outbreaks, the EU and its member states have made immediate contributions, standing by the side of our partners in affected countries. This includes the donation
over half a million vaccine doses with close to 100 ,000 doses already delivered in the Democratic Republic of Congo on 5th of September. A second delivery amounting to around 100 ,000 vaccines is expected to arrive in the coming days. We're also collaborating with our African partners in various fields, especially as regards care, prevention, epidemiological surveillance, and genetic sequencing.
We look forward to continuing our constructive dialogue to conclude this important work we are engaged in and to make the world a safer place for all. Thank you.
Thank you EU Switzerland followed by Bangladesh.
Madame Co -Chair, first of all, would like to congratulate Ambassador Ampreu for her nomination as Co -Chair.
I hope that your task will be accomplished successfully and we would like to reiterate our support for everyone in the Bureau. From the very beginning, Switzerland has been engaged with the negotiation process. This exercise has allowed us to reflect on what we have accomplished in the past and to think about how to fill existing gaps. These discussions are not always easy, as we all know.
But the text that we have worked on so far is a solid base that we can take to the negotiating table. Switzerland, again, is fully committed to this process, and we are willing to discuss in a constructive manner in order to obtain a consensus -based result that is significant and realist for pandemic preparedness and response. As you all know,
This process has attracted a lot of political and civilian attention in Switzerland, which is why we must ensure full transparency during this process and during the following two weeks so that we can then properly inform our parliament and our population. Switzerland thanks the WHO for the information document that has been presented to us.
As for the legal framework, Switzerland has always been in favor of adopting an agreement based on Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. As for possible additional instruments, such as those related to PABs, we believe that this must fit with this agreement and must be adopted as per
what is stated in Chapter 3 of the draft agreement, which talks about protocols and possibly annexes.
These instruments then will be handled by the Conference of the Parties to the Accord. And this will allow us to have a coherent and proper document. The adoption by consensus of the document is a vital step if we want to protect global health and if we want to bolster international cooperation in the fight against transmissible diseases.
This is a complex process. And so we congratulate the bureaus for their cooperation and their work during this process. It is vital that we keep going and to refer as much as possible to the text of the agreement. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. You spoke about the legal framework. And we will be speaking about this just after the opening statement.
Thank you, Madam Co -Chair. At the outset, I would like to welcome you as the Co -Chair of the INB. We hope to see successful conclusion of the negotiation under the powerful leadership of two powerful ladies, distinguished representatives. We all are aware of the background of conception of the treaty. We thankfully recall the initiative of the developed countries to achieve health equity across the globe through overhauling global health systems, architecture, and governance.
We do believe they will engage with a renewed spirit for concluding a treaty with action to serve the humanity and address the concern of all. In our going forward, the successful amendment of IHR, we do believe will help us leapfrog in the INB meeting. While we have the timeline of May 2025, the importance of substance must be upheld. Certainly, we want to see an IHR plus instrument
and there is no space for a minus approach. The unprecedented impact of COVID -19 pandemic forced the conception of the PA. Now we are in the midst of another health emergency. is -pox outbreak. Challenges have been more or less around similar kind of thematic and logistic areas that we faced during the COVID -19 pandemic. We hope the predicament we are facing right now
because of MPOCS would guide us in our going forward in the PA negotiation, particularly in dispelling the differences amongst us. In this round of negotiation, we suggest to preserve the progress made up till now and reduce the number of contentious issues so that we are able to conclude the treaty as we do envisage. We found interactive dialogue useful and hope to refer to them as the discussion proceeds.
but the negotiation should be laid by the member states. With this I conclude. Thank you, Manoj. Thank you very much, Bangladesh. Ethiopia followed by China.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Please allow me to express my appreciation, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to deliver this statement on behalf of the 47 African member states and plus Egypt. We thank the INB Bureau and the WHO Secretariat for organizing this interactive dialogue to discuss important issues in advance of INB 11.
We deem the coming two weeks of negotiations would be crucial in reaching a meaningful outcome to operationalize equity and finalize the draft pandemic agreement as soon as possible. As we all know, -POCS has been declared as public health emergency of international concern and at the same time a public health emergency of
continental security for the African region. This calls for a more focused approach to address the outstanding elements in the draft pandemic agreement to ensure that it's balanced and addresses the gaps that perpetuate health inequalities and inequities, particularly in the developing countries. African countries strongly believe that equity and global solidarity
must lie at the heart of our deliberations and decisions. We agree that the INB2 decisions as contained in the document A, INB, slash two, slash five on this matter and to reiterate that we cannot afford to maintain the status quo. We have to draw lessons from the COVID -19 pandemic, hence.
our conviction to finalise the draft pandemic agreement emanates from our common resolve to adopt it under Article 19 of the WHO constitution. This would enable us to strengthen the accountability at the highest level. In addition, ratification of international treaties must, in most countries, would facilitate resource allocation which allow
to ensure domestic financing for the implementation of the pandemic agreement. The draft pandemic agreement should also be complementary and current with the recently amended international health regulations and with a proper mechanism to ensure its operationalization would be crucial in achieving its objectives. However, we would like to highlight that the necessary adjustments
should be made to suit the context of the draft pandemic agreement, including the definition of terms as appropriate, which are indicated in the draft. Madam Chair, Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, we have a long way to go to ensure that our world is better prepared for the next pandemic. To this end, it would be important that we build on progress made
thus far and remain cautious not to reopen already agreed texts.
Regarding PAPS, we are of the view that this is an integral part of the pandemic agreement and its success will determine the fate of the entire agreement and its coming into force. We wish to see that member states and other stakeholders continue to be committed to the process and engage constructively to reach a compromise, find a concrete and meaningful solutions to ensure that access
to biological materials and sequence information is treated on an equal footing with equitable sharing of both monetary and non -monetary benefits driving from utilization thereof including through the operational dimension of PAPS. Once again, the 47 member states of African region and Egypt remain committed and steadfast to contribute our share to an effective meeting.
and meet the expectations to operationalize equity, leaving no one behind. Thank you, Madam Chair.
China would like to thank the IMB Bureau and the Secretariat for their efforts to promote the negotiation of the pandemic treaty. I would welcome and support the new two Madam Co -Chairs and would like to thank the Bureau for the regional and geographical representation. The negotiations of the pandemic treaty have been ongoing for two years. During the negotiating process, in particular,
In the run up to the WHA, all representatives made great efforts and dedication through unity, mutual understanding, bridging differences, which fully reflects the international community's determination in defending the pandemic treaty and preventing further pandemics. However, though we did not reach consensus before the WHA, we
still achieved various objectives. Hopefully we can continue our morale so that we can reach our historical mission before the 78th WHA or even at an early date. The pandemic treaty and legal instrument is lessons learned by the international community and to improve the prevention and preparedness of future pandemics so that future generations can be
of can be prevented and protected from pandemics and representing a major measure. China has always participated in negotiations constructively to reach consensus on the draft. China hopes that the pandemic treaty can practically increase the capacity of the international community to prevent prepare the future pandemics so as to resolve the remaining issues in our negotiations.
And hopefully, on major articles, can provide feasible and practical solutions. With regard to IMB 11 and 12 negotiations, China has the following recommendations. One, we should continue to follow up to the negotiating process we have achieved so far. And the Bureau should continue to...
facilitate the draft of the pandemic and the momentum of the previous negotiating round should be maintained with a focus on the text other than the green part. And with regard to the part that needs to further need to be improved logistically, we need to maintain a flexible attitude and when necessary, further improvements should also be made on this part. And thirdly,
It is our hope that the Bureau can facilitate the different departments and experts from the different departments of the WHO. In particular, we should sort out the core part of these, the treaty articles, in particular whether these articles can be feasible and implementable when entering into force and whether they can serve as guidance for member states to prevent and prepare for future pandemics.
We need to ensure that the public health preparedness articles are practical.
When it comes to the articles that might go beyond the mandate of the WHO, for example, the supply chain, R &D, technical transfer, and financing, we hope other international organizations, including WIPO and the World Bank, can also participate in the negotiating process, carry out in -depth dialogue with member states, and find out practical solutions so as to help us improve these articles. Fifthly,
We agree with the programme of work of the Bureau, starting from the most difficult articles. Finally, we'd like to emphasise that the pandemic should, from financial and technical perspective, continue to strengthen capacity building of developing countries with a focus on equity issues, so as to go back to very beginning of the pandemic treaty. China commits to further...
in -depth dialogue and working with all other parties to demonstrate our determination in furthering international pandemic cooperation so as to complete our historic mission as early as possible. Thank you. Thank you very much. The States, it's Nigeria.
Nigeria, you have the floor.
South Africa first.
South Africa and Nigeria, are you ready to take the floor or do you want to come back later? Okay, so thank you very much. I'm actually online and it's just now that I've been unmuted. Okay, so firstly Nigeria aligns with the statement made by Ethiopia on behalf of the African region, Egypt. Nigeria expresses appreciation to the member states, the co -chairs.
the sectorate, relevant stakeholders, and everyone involved in this process. I want to lay emphasis on the objective of this process, which is to address the inequities that existed during the pandemics and ensure that moving forward, equity would be at the center of global health architecture, especially with respect to pandemics. It is important, therefore, that we do our work in a way that ensures equity considerations are maintained.
in the process. Furthermore, with the time addition of for the work of the IMB, it is important that we work in the best interests of the global community and have a pandemic agreement that will ensure that will equitably and effectively respond to pandemics in the future, bearing in mind that no one is safe until everyone is safe. Thank you.
Thank you very much. One more member states and then we will have to move on. It's South Africa.
Coaches, Director General Dr. Tedros, Excellencies, Permanent Representatives, and colleagues present here today, negotiators and Permanent Representatives from Member States, partners and non -state actors, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. South Africa Alliance to the Regional Statement delivered on behalf of the 47 Member States of the African region.
as
the health assembly in 2025 or earlier through a special session of the world health assembly if possible. In 2024, we'll only one agenda item dedicated to this outcome. Let me take this opportunity to thank you, Bioro, and the Secretariat for an interactive dialogue organized last week. We note with interest the presentations of the experts and that member states
will still have the possibility to take the final decision, taking into account the main reasons the second special session of the World Health Assembly convened and agreed to establish the INB to draft and negotiate this international pandemic instrument. South Africa is still convinced and remain committed to the finalization of the WHO, sorry, South Africa.
South Africa is still convinced and remains committed to the finalization of the WHO international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response that should be adopted as a legally binding instrument adopted as Article 19 of the WHO constitution. In our view, a legally binding instrument adopted as Article 19 of the WHO constitution
The will elevate the level of accountability and reporting as international treaties by member states go through ratification process by parliaments, thus also provides assurance of allocation of local resources for implementation. is based on the above that South Africa continue to advocate an appeal for a legally binding adopted under
is in the same spirit that South Africa supports the need to safeguard continuity and sustain momentum and maintain progress made to date. Therefore, we want to reiterate that protecting agreed text and areas of convergence where there are no controversies is important and should guide us all as we move forward with the negotiations. To this end,
South Africa is of the view that the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, the POPs, should be expanded to qualify for the POP system to be established by the WHO international instrument. This will require the preservation of the current text and provide more for clarity to avoid ambiguities in the future.
the to put the equity outcomes in the center in order to change the current situation to make a better world. That is what we should strive for. So we urge all member states to commit to the realization of equity in this instrument, informed by solidarity, thus putting the interests of the poor and disadvantaged first. It is in that spirit
that we as member states to guard against losing the caring spirit and solidarity that existed at the beginning of this process. It is that commitment to humanity and the principles of solidarity in addressing equity that will carry us to change the current status quo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, thank you very much. Actually it's the third time I've said that it's the last one of my list. But actually there are others. So I see Brazil, followed by Salvador online. And.
Slovakia. Okay. Just to mention that we have a very busy agenda this morning. So, take care. Thank you. Brady, you have the floor. Thank you much, Madam Co -Chair. I apologize. As I join others in welcoming you.
on your new role of co -chair. I just took the word because we have just learned sadly about the passing of Her Excellency, the permanent representative of Peru and former Prime Minister Ana Cecilia Hervase. So we want to express our condolences to the Peruvian mission and to the government of Peru and to Her Excellency family.
Thank you.
Thank you very much and thank you for mentioning it. share it. Ed Salvador followed by Slovakia. Online I think.
El Salvador online, are you ready to take the floor?
Thank you very much.
a very good morning. Thank you, Madam Co -Chair, for giving me the floor.
I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you for being named co -chair during this session.
In the past two years, we have made significant strides.
Which is why we believe we must keep this momentum by negotiating based on the agreed -upon texts without reopening these discussions. Because otherwise we might get bogged down and none of the delegations want that.
The latest health emergency has highlighted that the WHO needs a treaty for pandemic preparedness and response that will guarantee the prompt delivery of vaccines and other health care equipment to the countries that need it so that no one gets left behind. These negotiations must be as inclusive and transparent as possible.
without falling into parallel discourses. Because this would be an additional challenge for delegations such as mine.
We are also glad that there is interpretation into the different languages because this makes the negotiation process much smoother. Finally, Madam Co -Chair, I would like to reiterate my supports with this negotiation process with the aim of deciding on an agreement that will allow us to face future health emergencies. Thank you. Thank you very much. So the very last one.
My list is Slovakia online.
Excellencies, distinguished ministers, ladies and gentlemen, the Slovak Republic recognizes the need for an international agreement to regulate such situations as the COVID -19 pandemic, but it's also necessary to learn the lessons of our past and the mistakes that were made. I would also like to emphasize that the current text of the agreement does not take into account
sufficiently human rights law. For example, the regulations of the EU where we must respect the European Convention of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights, Human Rights and Biomedicine. are provisions that should be included and should not be contravened. Our proposal is
has to do with combating misinformation. And we would like to have clear, prior informed consent regarding new medications and vaccines included in the document as well.
As other aspects in this regard, we...
would like to see.
a number of aspects included in the document considering the
event around COVID -19 and the statements made by WHO and supported by Australia, the USA, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Lithuania, Norway, the Korea and other states, which emphasize the importance of world health security and the world capacity of detecting
and addressing future epidemics, we in our comments will propose the creation of an international investigative body, inquiry body, with the necessary mandate and authorities without which it will not be possible to address efficiently any situations that present pandemic
situate a pandemic or threat and epidemics.
We will not be able to mitigate the consequences of future pandemics without such a body. Otherwise, we will not be able to speak of improving the response of the international community if the situation.
related to the COVID -19 pandemic is not managed well.
I will include this in my comment on the relevant articles of the proposal later.
Yes, good morning. I'm actually really starting on the first item, but I'll do it just, and I can be quite brief about it. In talking about the legal instrument dialogue last week, it's clear that there are many options open that are perfectly legal, but I want to focus at this moment on the legal instrument for PABs. Sorry, sorry, if I may. Yes, I'll wait.
I understand that your intervention is about the legal architecture. We will start this one right after. That will be publicly webcast with stakeholders, so I think it's better if you could intervene a bit later. Thank you. Thank you. agree. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, good morning all. And thank you for the opportunity to continue engaging in the INB process. The biopharmaceutical industry is committed to achieving a pandemic agreement that works. We believe it is possible to reach an agreement that addresses the needs of countries while enabling the private sector to innovate and respond effectively to future pandemics. Each pathogen of pandemic potential is unique, and so too will be the response of each company.
The agreement must recognize the diversity within the biopharmaceutical industry as each company has different strengths based on its size, location, technology platform, and manufacturing capabilities. Our contributions should be tailored accordingly, ensuring that companies can engage meaningfully based on their individual circumstances. We call for a framework that allows companies to choose from a menu of options to maximize their impact.
Importantly, industry is ready to make such individual company commitments binding as part of a multi -stakeholder partnership. We call for creativity and proactive engagement by all stakeholders to tackle critical challenges such as improving demand forecasting, ensuring surge financing for procurement in low -income countries, and addressing regulatory barriers. These are essential components of a robust system
that will enable timely responses during health crisis and ensure equitable access to medical countermeasures. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Oxfam followed by United Nations Children Fund. And the last one on my list, that will be the joke of the day. The last one is Parliamentary Action Network. Thank you.
Aksan would like to highlight a few issues that we think are essential in negotiating the legal architecture of the pandemic agreement. Firstly, the starting point of any effective pandemic agreement is legally binding. Sorry, sorry. If it's about the legal architecture, maybe you can keep this point for the next item because we will start with legal architecture.
Is your statement about legal architecture on? Yes, so we will move on to the legal architecture, but now we are still with the opening statements. And when we will start the item about the legal architecture, as the previous speaker, maybe you will be able to take the floor at this time. Thank you.
United Nations Children Fund, followed by Panamik Action Network. Thank you, Chair, and welcome. UNICEF also commends all the member states and the bureau and secretariat to continue on these important negotiations. I want to build on what Mike Ryan said when he said earlier on that lot of parents, grandparents, are dropping off their children in the moment for schools. That's not the case everywhere, and especially those communities that currently are
having the impact of -POCs, many schools and services are not continuing. children and pregnant women are very much affected, yet the current draft is not mentioning children. As UNICEF, just want to highlight it's really important that somewhere in the text you mention children because they are the brunt of public health emergencies. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. The last one is
economic action network.
online.
Thank you very much, Co -Chair. Can you hear me? Thank you very much, Madam Co -Chair. I'm thrilled to be happy to give a statement on behalf of Pandemic Action Network.
We are very impressed by the statements made by member states, underscoring the urgency on the need to continue this important process, looking at what we are facing currently, which is another public health emergency. It is imperative that the final agreement be as robust and as inclusive as possible. To achieve this, it's important that outstanding issues such as public access and benefit sharing, technology transfer, intellectual property, health,
be robust in the text of the final agreement as we think relegating issues to separate protocols only would further fragment the global PPR ecosystem and undercut the global solidarity and universality needed for meaningful change. Secondly, we think that the final agreement must be structured to drive the highest level of mobility. of the agreement must have incentives for actioning in ones, including independent monitoring through conference of parties,
And if protocols are formed, they cannot be incentivized for high level accountability and compliance. Sadly, pandemic agreement and any subsequent protocol must be legally structured to enter into force as expeditiously as possible. As the current impacts of emergency clearly demonstrate, the world cannot afford to wait for systems and structures to drive coordinated action during global public health emergency. Without significant and meaningful reforms to pandemic PPR ecosystem,
We are seeing many of the same system failures from COVID -19 repeating themselves in their reforms. Despite leadership from Africa CDC and WHO, we must commit meaningful reforms, actions around the world now. We urge WHO member states to appropriately balance the needs for universality, accountability, and expeditious implementation in each path forward to a final agreement. All are important and none can be changed.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Actually, in your statements, many of you have already mentioned the legal architecture. So we propose to move on to the consideration of agenda item two, negotiation of an agreement on the proposed WHO pandemic agreement. This item will be considered in three parts as follows.
First, a publicly webcast discussion on the legal architecture of the proposal for the WHO -Panemic Agreement as contained in document A -INB -11 -INF -1. Second, a publicly webcast discussion again on the complementarity and coherence between the amended IHR
adopted by the 77th World Health Assembly and the proposal for WHO Parliaments Agreement as contained in document A -INB -11 -INF -2. That will be the program for this morning. And third, this afternoon we will start the drafting group
So the drafting group will continue its negotiations and selected articles in closed session. So without further ado, let's consider the legal architecture of the proposal for the WHO pandemic agreement. We had the interactive dialogue on the legal architecture last week and the question of the legal architecture was weighed at previous sessions.
in particular to understand the general structure of this agreement, which could have several subsequent instruments, notably for the PAPS and prevention on one has approach. In addition to the legal basis of this future agreement, some of you this morning have already mentioned it, and especially the article 19 or 21 of the W constitution. It is important to understand
how this complex whole will function and be implemented. The nature of these two instruments is essential as implications will differ depending on what is adopted by the INB protocol or annexed. And ideally, as many countries as possible should be party to the pandemic agreement and both instruments.
It is also important to be clear about the possible timetable for the adoption of these instruments. What are the possible timetables if the instrument for article front five or 12 are protocols or annex? So the question is how to preserve the package with time issues and to avoid fragmentation. As discussed at the IND -10 in July,
the Secretariat prepared an information paper on the legal architecture of the proposal for the WHO pandemic agreement. And I would like to thank the Secretariat, which took time out of its summer break to prepare these dialogues and this paper. So last week we organized an interactive dialogue on the legal architecture to provide
balance on diverse expertise, viewpoints and perspective, and to allow an exchange with resource persons. 27 resource persons for this very specific topic have been invited. 11 have responded positively and joined the session. I'm from the secretariat, Steve Solomon and Kenneth Percy were with us, and I would like to sign them again. I'm not going to
summarize the discussion we had last week at the interactive dialogue, but I invite all the member states to reflect on the discussions and look at the achieved webcast, which is available on the website, as well as the written contributions provided from the resource persons. So before I open the floor to comments, I invite the Secretariat to provide
a short presentation. Mr. Stephen Solomon, Principal Legal Officer. Steve, you have the floor.
Vice Chair, thank you very much and a very good morning to everyone. It's very good to see everyone. I think I'd just like to note in starting out that the sense of energy in the room is very much reflected in the statements we've been hearing this morning. I'd also like to thank the entire team for the support with this paper and the preparations for this and the interactive dialogue that
first and foremost by Dr. Majore and in particular the entire team help, but I've got to particularly thank Kenneth and Claudia Nanini. So if we could move on to the first slide. So as the Vice Chair has made clear, this document, the information document on the legal architecture of the proposal for the WHO pandemic agreement was requested at the 10th meeting. For ease of use,
We structured it in a Q &A format. And I think if we could, in one sentence, sum up the 10 -page document, it would be that you, as sovereign states, have demonstrated a great deal of creativity in your use of the normative mechanisms and the normative tools available to you when you want to accomplish shared objectives and when you want to develop norms to advance those shared objectives. So you have demonstrated a great deal of creativity in your use of international law.
Next slide please. So we'll briefly go through question by question with very short answers in the slides that try to summarize what is in the paper.
The first question was what is the legal basis for the pandemic agreement? It is of course Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, framed of course by the decision of INB2, which decided that the instrument would be identified as Article 19 as the operative instrument for the work, but as the instrument was adopted, this would be done.
again according to the decision of INB2 without prejudice to also considering as work progresses the suitability of Article 21. Next slide please. The second question deals with the relationship between the pandemic agreement and the IHR. Of course there's a separate information document on that subject from a legal perspective. I think we would just mention.
Three things, first that it is very clear from the text of the relationship provisions that the key word is compatibility. The importance of coherence and compatibility between the instruments is essential. This is advanced by the principle of mutual supportiveness in the drafting of the instruments. This principle of mutual supportiveness
follows from the mandate that the INB received from the health assembly, follows from the mandate that the WGIHR received. So this principle of mutual supportiveness is very much part of the DNA of both the amendments agreed in the IHR and of the work so far on the pandemic agreement. And then I think it's very important to mention a general principle of international law with respect to relationship among.
between the PA and the IHR, and that is the principle of Pacta sunt servanda, which is the principle that obligations must be fulfilled in good faith. This principle is enshrined, of course, in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is contained in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. There is also an important preambular paragraph, which in
forms this principle. It's worth reading out again in the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaty, preambulant paragraph three provides that the principles of free consent and of good faith and pactus sunt servanda are universally recognized. And of course this principle informs all other aspects of relationship between these instruments as well as relationships with other
relevant instruments. Next slide please in question three. The options for additional instruments. within the current text of the INB there are at least three, of course annexes as one, protocols as another, but also amendments of the agreement itself. All are provided for in the current text of
the CA plus. A note on the annexes option because it often comes, the question comes up, what is the difference between annexes and protocols? The difference is not so great within the terms of the current CA plus. In fact, an annex as currently drafted in the CA plus is
very closely aligned with amendments. This differs from the treatment of annexes in instruments, especially in the environmental law area, where annexes are developed so as to provide a mechanism that is nimble for technical purposes and for technical adjustments. And often one sees in the environmental law area that annexes come into force.
to advance that agility, they come into force through an opt -out procedure. This is not the case, not the case. And it's worth pointing out because the question keeps arising, what is the differences? Answer is the differences are very slight as drafted. Next question, please. Question four, what are the options regarding articles between article four, articles four and five dealing with one health?
on the one hand, and Article 12 dealing with PABs. And of course, the options would include further instruments in the form of an annex or further instruments in the form of a protocol. It's also possible to have external instruments that are somehow related. And these external instruments could be binding or non -binding. And I think the one
point of reference that may be useful is in the area of tobacco control, where WHO member states in the first instance and then tobacco parties, parties to the FCTC have concluded a protocol to advance common objectives. They have also included guidelines. But also importantly, member states of WHO have concluded resolutions of the health assembly
related to tobacco control, which bear on the subject matter of tobacco control and also bear on the FCTC. So there are multiple options available to member states in considering further instruments in the area of One Health and in the area of PABs. Question five, please. So if there are three instruments, CA plus,
something on One Health, something on PABs. How should they interact? And here we go back to the principle of compatibility, the principle of complementarity, the principle of practice and servanda. Three considerations, I think, are paramount in considering interaction. One, of course, is what is the approval mechanism for whatever you agree? Is that what is the approval mechanism at the international level?
What is the approval mechanism at the domestic level? Second consideration is the governance. Will the governance for the instruments be the same? Will they be complementary governance processes? If so, how will that complementarity and coordination be developed? And then the third consideration of this course, implementability. As delegations have already mentioned, the importance of a practical and implementable arrangement.
So in terms of the interaction of the three possible instruments. Question six. Considerations regarding a specialized international instrument, the term of course from the Nagoya Protocol. And here it's the view of the Secretariat that whether a PABs instrument is concluded as an annex or a protocol or perhaps something else, there is
scope for countries seeing, and particularly Nagoya parties, whatever the instrument is as a specialized access and benefit sharing instrument. I would note here that Nagoya Protocol specifically uses the term specialized international instrument in Article 4 .4. does not use the term specialized international agreement. So the choice of the word instrument
was we understand a deliberate choice to encompass a broader array of normative possibilities. I think on this point of the Nagoya Protocol, it's worth recalling a few relevant facts that have raised questions, namely the fact that not all countries who are participating here
are party to the Nagoya Protocol. This is of course true. There are 141 states party to the Nagoya Protocol. There are however 196 states that are party to the parent instrument, the Convention on Biological Diversity. Again, 196 countries are party to the CBD. The countries that are not party to the CBD,
are three member states, the US, Andorra, and South Sudan. They are not parties to the CBD. I say this because 196 is often seen as a universal number, but there are three member states that are not party, and there's one observer state that is not party, that is the Holy See. But if you subtract 141 from 196, you will find that there are
55 countries that are not parties to the Nagoya Protocol, the 55 not parties to the Nagoya Protocol that are parties to the CBD. And I mention this because of those 55 countries that are not parties to the Nagoya Protocol, there may be relevant legislation at the domestic level of those 55 countries.
relevant legislation to the issue of access and benefit sharing. So the issue concerns the Nagoya Protocol, but may go beyond that as well, as many countries who are not party to Nagoya do have access and benefit sharing legislation that may be of concern as you develop a PABs instrument. Question seven. The architecture for entry into force.
And here we return, I think, to that point I made at the beginning about the creativity that member states have shown in engineering entry into force provisions. And in the paper, there's a section on page nine which is pulled directly from a UN legal office document that illustrates the
scale of creativity available for entry into force. Member states do often condition entry into force of instruments on factors not only about the number of states required to ratify, but on other factors that they, member states, consider relevant to achieve their shared objectives. And I think one of the points in the UN legal document
which is quoted in our paper. One of the references there illustrates this quite well, and that is the reference to a 2006 treaty known as the International Tropical Timber Agreement. There, entry into force is conditioned on acceptance of the treaty by a fixed percentage of both producer countries and a fixed percentage of consumer countries.
And then, to further demonstrate this creativity, if the instrument doesn't enter into force with that fixed percentage by a date certain, there is a further possibility of a provisional entry into force or provisional application of that treaty by a reduced fixed percentage of consumer countries and producer countries. All by way of illustrating
that there are, there is clearly good precedent for developing an entry into force that accommodates concerns about, for example, if it's desirable, simultaneity or sequencing by date certain according to a timetable. So very good precedent for such sequencing and simultaneity. And you'll recall, of course, that New Zealand offered a non -paper on this subject as well.
where they envisioned certain conditionality on entry into force. think that, next slide, that brings us to our conclusion. I want to again thank the INB for the opportunity to provide this and the Bureau for their guidance in particular in developing this paper, which we hope is helpful to you. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you very much Steve, that's very helpful. And the paper gives an overview of the different questions, seven. And before opening the floor, I will have one question and one comment. One very specific question about annex. Especially because it's very close to amendments, as you mentioned, and it is not a separate instrument.
What are the consequences regarding time issues? Does it mean that annex should be a doubt at the same time as a pandemic agreement? I think it's an important question. Second, it was a comment and especially regarding the question seven, the entry into force architecture. Of course, it's a very important question and thank you for.
the examples you gave because it's very relevant and we understand that we will need creativity for that specific question. So we need to be ready to work on it collectively to be creative and to have a good outcome. I'll stop here and I will open the floor to member states.
And after member states stakeholders, it is open to stakeholders, but I will open the floor first to member states.
Four questions, four comments.
Nigeria, you have the floor. Niger. No, sorry, Niger. You have the floor, Niger. I'm sorry, I got mixed up with the spelling. Thank you very much, co -chair. No problem. It happens.
Thank you dear colleagues and a good morning to everyone.
Thank you for continuing this negotiation process. We have followed with interest the presentation on the legal framework that is currently undergoing.
We have a few questions and also concerns, especially regarding the explanations given on the difference between the annexes, the protocols, and the amendments.
We would appreciate further explanation on this matter, because this is a very important text that will allow Member States to understand what is in play here.
At the end of the day, no one should be mired in a process that they don't even fully understand, which is why we would appreciate a more thorough explanation so that we could fully understand the scope of what we are currently negotiating. A second comment, perhaps a criticism. Yes, member states have been very creative
in speaking about complementarity in PABs and other matters.
This will allow member states to put into place
a system that can later be deployed.
But the idea is to make things as simple as possible so that we can apply these provisions at least temporarily.
Niger is against this process.
because we can see where it's going to take us.
In order for this process to be successful,
We need everyone to get on the same side because otherwise the instrument itself will not be applied in its totality. Thank you. Thank you.
So you are asking for more clarity. We take note of that.
I imagine that many other member states have similar concerns because it's a very complex matter. This is a public and collective session. This doesn't mean that we're going to stop discussing the legal framework today. We will return to this.
Thank you, Madam Co -Chair. And let me start by also just congratulating you and Fleur Davies for your new roles on the Bureau and express my ongoing gratitude to all the Bureau members for the hard work that you've put in preparing us for this session and that we will all undertake together in the coming weeks. Regarding the legal architecture,
The United States appreciates the Secretariat's work on this important topic. We're pleased that the INB is giving careful consideration to this issue because there were many questions left unanswered in previous sessions. The legal architecture of both the pandemic agreement and any follow -on instruments will have a huge impact on our mission, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure the best outcome for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.
While my government appreciates the analysis provided by the Secretariat, we should not limit ourselves to the options presented in detail for follow -on instruments in the information paper. We fully agree with the point made during the interactive dialogues that the INB should carefully consider all options related to the legal architecture question and consult more fully with legal experts regarding the most appropriate structure to achieve our desired outcomes.
One key takeaway from the dialogues is that the form for follow -on instruments such as PAVs should enable the broadest participation and allow for rapid adoption. This would help ensure the global community is best prepared for the next pandemic. We believe that adopting an access and benefit sharing system under Article 21 would achieve this objective. Some experts cautioned that if the pandemic agreement were adopted under Article 19,
Pursuing a PABs instrument under Article 21 could present complexities for aligning parties to both instruments and coordinating entry into force. Fortunately, these complexities can all be addressed with the options available to us under the WHO Constitution. One way that we could address these issues is to adopt the pandemic agreement under Article 21, which has remained an option on the table for the INB over the past two years.
This would provide a greater opportunity for universal membership, more rapid entry into force, and better coherence with follow -on instruments and the IHR. We were pleased with the Secretariat's recent interpretation of the scope of Article 21A and agree that in general, the elements of the pandemic agreement fit within its bounds. While we understand many member states currently prefer concluding the pandemic agreement under Article 19,
and may have concerns about doing so under Article 21. We believe these concerns can be adequately addressed. The legal advisor has acknowledged the creativity shown by member states in the past, and we look forward to a more fulsome discussion of this issue during this and future INB sessions. I thank you.
Thank you, USA is very clear. Sorry, so there was a mistake because of the translation. Colombia was first, so we have not forgotten Colombia. I'm looking for Colombia in the room, actually. Yes, you have the floor, Colombia. I'm very sorry. You have the floor. It's okay, Madam President, and good morning, colleagues. First of all, of course, congratulations on your appointment in the Bureau, and thank you to the Secretariat.
for the presentation that they just made. I'm gonna switch to Spanish now. As we understand it, delegations are speaking about the need to have three instruments, this in relation to the legal framework. These three instruments would be a pandemic agreement,
which should probably adopted under Article 19, a second instrument on PABs and one instrument on One Health. Our delegation supports the need, the idea of using all available legal tools as was just presented in order to put together an emergency architecture that is coordinated and effective. However, we have three comments regarding this legal framework.
Columbia considers that it is very important to, number one, ensure that the three instruments are linked to one another so that they are part of the same legal architecture and their entry into force must also be linked. Secondly, the instruments related to PABs, prevention and One Health, must take into account
that they must not exceed the mandate of other instruments. Lastly, coordination.
between this pandemic instrument and IHR is vital if we are to put together an effective legal framework. In this sense, even though the three instruments are different to one another, we must take into account that this is all part of a continuum. And the objective
is to prevent future international public health emergencies. And in order to prevent these health emergencies from evolving into pandemics, in this sense, we must have the correct tools available to us to face future pandemics. And this is also something very important for us. This should not impede us from making sure that the Pandemic Preparedness Agreement
is able to expand its scope as necessary. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Colombia.
Afghanistan followed by Saudi Arabia.
Thank you, Madam Co -Chair. We first wish to congratulate Ambassador Anpro and Madam Fleur -Davies for formally assuming the role of the Co -Chair and Vice -Chair of this process, respectively. We have complete faith in your abilities to guide this process to a successful outcome and wish you all the best. We thank the secretary for sharing the information paper as well as for the useful presentation. On the topic of legal architecture for the pandemic agreement, we remain committed.
to adoption of the agreement under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. My delegation believes that we need a higher level of commitment for PPR, remaining cognizant of the fact that we need maximum participation. In our view, adoption under Article 21 would have required more details in the document, which the current treaty -level text lacks, which has not been by accident, but by design. As highlighted in the interactive dialogues,
We do not wish to inadvertently expand the scope of Article 21, which is primarily focused on setting standards and other setting requirements and is not necessarily there to provide a different level of legal obligation. As for PABs, my delegation is of the view that the system should be an integral part of the pandemic agreement and should remain under the same legal provisions as the main agreement. On the agreement coming into force,
It should come into force once the additional negotiation components have been finalized and are also ready for adoption so that there is no legal ambiguity for the parties willing and ready to ratify the agreement. We see that this is a possibility under the number of options shared by the Secretariat in its information paper. However, we remain open to more deliberations and discussions on this particular aspect.
And finally on SII, we will share our detailed views once we get the discussions on Article 12, but we appreciate very much the discussions that took place during the interactive dialogues and the information shared by the Secretariat. Thank you, Madam Koucher. Thank you very much. Just, if I may, just to be clear about your statement when you talk about the path, saying that it should be an integrated part of the pandemic agreement, does it mean that Pakistan supports the idea of
annex or amendments for the PAPs because protocols is a separate instrument. I'm To some extent, yes. At this stage, we do not support a separate protocol which has a very different than legal understanding. Our understanding is that when we are agreeing to establish something, it should then be a part of agreement and we can discuss that whether there could be one option that all parts come into force together. Okay, very clear. Thank you very much.
Saudi Arabia followed by Nigeria.
Thank you, Madam Co -Chair. Saudi Arabia wishes to extend its appreciation to the Secretariat and the legal team for the preparation of the information document and the legal architecture of the proposal for the pandemic agreement. In the view of the Saudi Arabia, this document is generally acceptable. Saudi Arabia will prepare further detailed comments and observation later on. Since the whole document more closely reflects
What we expect about the legal aspect of pandemic agreement, Saudi Arabia acknowledged the detailed information provided by the document. We have one observation here regarding to protocols to pandemic agreement. Protocols are considered as a separate legal instrument, which means that instrument would establish additional rights and obligations to the pandemic agreement.
At the same time, is of independent character and subject to independent ratification. Such protocol enables certain parties of the agreement to establish among themselves a framework of obligation which reach farther than the general agreement and to which not all parties of the agreement consent. By default, this will create a two -tier system. We look forward to
accept this important document, which is an important cornerstone of the pandemic agreement, as it will facilitate the process of discussion and negotiation on the pandemic agreement. I thank you.
Thank you
Thank you, Madam Co -Chair. So we'd like to thank the secretary for the presentation that has been made. And we have seen the various explanations relating to protocol as being a separate legal instrument. And of course, for the annexes, as also being an integral part of the document. However, in question three, we have a concern relating to the fact that
the operating model seems to be that the main document will be accepted separately and then member states will also need to do another depository of an instrument or document in order to accept that of annexes. so, given the importance of every part of this process,
And of course, you know, some of those elements that are also very crucial and central to addressing a bit of which we intend to put in the, which might go to the annexes as we do our work. And so the concern is if we allow it to be a process where
Member states will have to accept the main document separately and also then have to do another one separately for the annexes. Would this not jeopardize possible acceptance by all member states, you know, where we have a selective acceptance? So this concern I would like to know, you know, from the sector, is there no operational model that ensures that once the main part is accepted,
The annexation should be automatic as well. Once the work of the annex is concluded, it should also be automatic that every member state that have accepted the main part of the work should also automatically have accepted the annex. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I don't know if the secretary would like to provide answers to this very, very specific question about annex because I think it's very important to understand first the legal architecture, second, sorry about this question again, but time issues. mean, if it is an annex, when should it be adopted regarding the timelines we have for the Parliamentary Agreement and the question raised by Nigeria? Thank you, Steve.
You have the floor. Thank you, thank you very much and thank you to the delegations that have spoken for the questions and for all of the inputs from delegations as well as from the resource persons at the interactive dialogue on these issues which were very helpful. First on the question of timing. So there is an issue with
timing if one is looking at the instruments, concluding instruments in the form of an annex or a protocol just from a logical sequence perspective. So it's envisioned in the current text that annexes and protocols would be negotiated by the conference of the parties. So accordingly, if one has to wait for the conference of the parties to be established, it means waiting necessarily for the entry into force of the pandemic agreement.
So on its face, you have a problem where if it is only the conference of the parties that can negotiate an annexed agreement, you'd have to adopt the pandemic agreement in the assembly. You'd have to achieve, I think, the necessary number of ratifications, 60 in this case. The conference of the parties would have to be established, the procedures and rules adopted to establish it, and then it could get to work on that. That's clearly not what is envisioned, however.
as member states are frequently discussing the idea of an intergovernmental working group to develop the protocols. And so the question arises, is there precedent for a international conference, an international body, to develop protocols, annexes, at the same time as the parent instrument? And here again, the answer is yes, there is precedent. So there's both.
there's precedent both in the human rights area as well as in the disarmament area. So for example, in the context of disarmament, there's a UN convention known as the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons where the parent instrument, it's not a framework treaty by the way, the CCW, UN Convention on Conventional Weapons, the parent instrument was developed at the same time as three
of its protocols. It now has five protocols. But the parent instrument and the protocols developed at the same time. And by the way, there was concern also, as you have now, there was concern then about the possibility of ratifying the convention without binding oneself to the protocols. So what parties did, what states did in elaborating the CCW was in the entry into force provision
they required that ratification of the parent convention include ratification of at least two of the three protocols. So there is on this issue of sequencing, or linkage as the Colombian delegation has very well put it, linkage has clearly been in the mind of previous international conferences negotiating instruments. So one would imagine,
that as you are considering an IGWIG to develop further instruments in this area that would be established by the World Health Assembly, there could be accommodation for the possibility of that IGWIG developing further instruments. On the issue of, I think it was Niger which requested more information about annexes and protocols, the first probably a word on what it means to be integral.
Integral means that an instrument is not separate from the parent convention in this case, or the parent treaty. This means, for example, if an instrument is integral, like an annex, that when you refer to the parent, you are automatically referring to the additional instrument, the annex. You've done this in the IHR.
for example, where the annexes to the IHR are integral to the regulations themselves. You can see this in Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the International Health Regulations, which says, unless otherwise specified or determined by the context, reference to these regulations includes the annexes thereto. So every time you say IHR 2005,
you are automatically referring to the annexes, so they're integral. That is not the case with protocols. That is one important difference. But the similarities are also important, because the way it's currently constructed, annexes and amendments and protocols all enter into force in similar ways, meaning all of them require an affirmative ratification by parties to enter into them. They are opt -in arrangements.
and presumably in that sense would go through a similar ratification process. I should say that's true with amendments and annexes. Protocols can have their own entry into force terms under this. But what is different than annexes in other arrangements, like international environmental law arrangements, is that annexes require this opt in.
Whereas in the environmental law area, annexes are often opt out. The idea in those cases is to make them more agile, more nimble, to provide for technical adjustments, technical elaboration, development of lists and similar things in annexes. That, again, is not the case as drafted. And this was raised a number of times in the interactive dialogue.
Finally, on the parties and the differences among the parties, there is, for annexes and amendments, availability of ratifying only to the parties of the parent convention. It is possible for protocols, possible because there's a few precedents that permit this, to allow for ratification of a protocol without being party to the parent instrument.
You haven't decided this yet in the pandemic agreement text. So that is, that's unclear at this point as to where that may land. I'll turn to the vice chair to see if I've addressed the questions that you've wanted addressed at this point, knowing that there are other member states which may wish to speak. Thank you. Thank you very much, Steve. That's very clear.
Thank you for mentioning the egg week. We will have to come back to this later to give clarity. think that member states will need clarity about that. The next on my list is Bangladesh followed by Egypt.
Thank you, Madam Co -Chair. We appreciate the Bureau and the Secretary for the Note on Legal Architecture. We are following specific comments on legal architecture of the PA. First, in line with our position on the legal nature of the PA alongside Article 19, we suggest to keep the option for Article 21 open. We do believe that universal applicability of the PA like that of ISR would be useful.
We support the U .S. proposal to have full -sum discussion on this at later stage. Second, we need to escalate IHR measures during a pandemic situation. Hence, in relevant articles of the PA, calibration of the agreed IHR text would be required. Fake in the shape of the definition of pandemic emergency will provide us that basis. Third, in Article 26 of the PA, we have two green paragraphs vis -a
health. human We We
public
parties to the main instrument should be party to the subsidiary instrument, otherwise the whole purpose will be defeated. The PA and PAPs are to be recognized effective at the same time to ensure harmonization between the two with same legal status. During the interactive dialogue, we heard from the secretary that PIP framework has established relationship with the manufacturers that produce 80 % of vaccines.
So PIP framework model can be useful in developing POPs instrument. During interactive dialogue, we put a question to our legal Mr. Solomon. He said that he would refer to us. It is on applicability of IHR during a pandemic situation while we have a pandemic instrument since pandemic is also a fake. We would appreciate his clarification on this. Thank you, Madam.
Thank you, Pakistan, Egypt, followed by European Union.
Thank you, Madam Co -Chair. We will get back on the point regarding the ratification or the adoption of a protocol rather than the meat of the body. My colleague, our legal advisor, is working on a reply in this regard, so please bear with me.
Regarding the relationship between the provisions of the IHR and the draft agreement in general, Egypt wishes to emphasize its belief in the equality in rank and force between those two legislative instruments. There is no room for applying a rule of hierarchy in legislation between them and that it is necessary to work on drafting the draft agreement in a way that enhances mutual support between them and the provisions of the aforementioned
Regulations. Egypt would like to point out some of the articles in the draft agreement that may overlap or conflict with some of the provisions of the regulations which must be taken into account when drafting the provisions of the draft agreement. regarding the existing obligation under Article 4 Para 2 of the draft agreement for each state in accordance with its national laws and subject to the availability of resources,
to develop national plans for the prevention and surveillance of pandemics in accordance with the provisions listed in the aforementioned paragraph, what would be the impact of this on the obligations of the states that falls under Article 5, Para 1 of the IHR, in which it implies to conduct an assessment of the health situation on the national level within five years of the entry into force of the regulations.
and for the purpose of acquiring, strengthening, and maintaining the ability to detect, assess, and report events. And can the assessment prepared by the states in accordance with Article 5, Para 1 of the regulations be considered as an alternative to the plans that must be prepared in accordance with Article 4, Para 2 of the agreement? Secondly, regarding the establishment of a multilateral system for the safe, transparent, and accountable sharing of pathogens that may cause pandemics.
The system of this organization for sharing pathogens and benefit sharing under Article 12 of the draft agreement requires the initiative to report on the causes of pandemics. And in this regard, what is the impact of creating such system on the obligation implied on the member states to notify the organization of all the events that constitute a public health emergency of international concern?
through the national focal point for the IHR in accordance with Article 6, Paraguan. And what is the impact of the establishment of the organization system for pathogen sharing and benefit sharing under the draft agreement in regard to what has implied in the IHR? Lastly, and this is the third point and it's very important because it's connected to the second point we've mentioned regarding the PAP system. How can the benefit
of the states from the organization system for sharing pathogens, access to pathogens and benefit sharing established under the draft agreement would be reconciled with the obligation under Article 11 para 2 of the IHR, which prohibits the organization from sharing information received in accordance with Article 6 of the regulations with non -state parties.
and
We will get back later on the part regarding Article 34 regarding the adoption of protocol without adoption of the modern treaty. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm very sorry for taking longer time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Two comments from my side. First, it has always been mentioned that there is no hierarchy between the IHR and the pandemic agreement.
There is a neutral supportiveness as it was mentioned earlier. So I think there is no ambiguity about that. Second, when you talk about the complementarity between IHR and Parliamentary Agreement Act, actually it is the next point of the agenda. So please, we will come back to that point. And regarding the very specific points.
Either Article 4, Paragraph 2, or the PAPS. Actually, I propose to have the discussion when we will come back in close session to the articles. I think that will be a more fruitful discussion. Thank
European Union followed by Namibia.
Thank you very much, Co -Chair. And we think this is a very useful discussion that helps us focus our mind on a number of issues. And I would like to perhaps...
get back to what the legal counsel was saying earlier, noting that there could be flexibilities in terms of reaching the objective of having effective rules applicable in a timely fashion. The possibility of concurrent negotiation of protocol
and or annexes, right, with the process of the parent agreement coming into force is of course well taken. Although I would like to seek confirmation from him that notwithstanding such concurrent work, even if a protocol and or an annex is
in a sense, the negotiation of a protocol and annex is concluded, right? The adoption of such instrument, be that an annex or a protocol, needs to wait for the conference of the party to be constituted. There is no way around it, and that's what I would like to hear his views. So assuming that, you know, the negotiating party are very
efficient in their work and they negotiate an additional annex or protocol within, let's say, 12 months or 24 months or whatever that may be the case, that product needs to be, so to say, put on ice, waiting for the conference of the party to be established. And that can be right thereafter or it can be in 10 years' time. So there is a little bit of an issue there.
in terms of the construction and I would like to hear if there is any sort of fix to that problem, time frame problem or not. At the moment I can't see a fix but maybe there is one. Thanks.
Thank you very much. Maybe before moving on, maybe the secretary could try to provide an answer. It's not an easy question, but it's a very important one, actually. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, co -chair. So I think what the EU delegation has just referred to as the time frame problem is the issue of the currently, the conference of the parties having the authority to adopt, to develop and adopt protocols and annexes. That's the current formulation.
So the EU asked if that's the case, while theoretically the IGWID could develop the draft, wouldn't it be the case that you still have to wait until the COP is established for the COP to adopt it? And therefore, you have to just develop it, then wait however long it will take to achieve 60 ratifications and to set up the COP and then
best of cases you don't actually negotiate at the COP. The COP takes the work from the health assembly, which has been in the global refrigerator, as it were. It hasn't spoiled. You've tightly sealed it. And the COP takes that and it adopts it. Under the current and the answer is, there, and the question was, is there a way around that? And the answer is yes, there's a way around it. Because in the pandemic agreement, you can provide
provision for adoption by the health assembly for particular instruments or for a particular timeframe to avoid a situation where you have a sequence, a time sequence, which is, which may be in your view, too long to wait. You don't want to wait that long on a health emergency preparedness issue. And so, but this would require new language.
in the current draft to allow for the possibility. And if you allowed for that possibility of the health assembly adopting an instrument before the cop comes into force, acting in a sense in its place, then you take care of that problem which would otherwise present itself. Thank you very much.
With your answer, I have another question, sorry about that. If it can be adopted by the World Health Assembly, are there any consequences on the legal basis? Because my understanding is that with the WHA, we cannot have the same basis as if it was the COP, for example. I just want to make sure, are there any consequences on the legal basis of this instrument if it is adopted by the WHA to avoid
this time frame problem.
Thank you, yes. Well, this is where I think a good example of how to manage this has already been provided to you in the form of the non -paper presented by the delegation of New Zealand. This is one option. And my understanding of that paper is it was intended as a food for thought paper. It wasn't directed at a final outcome on how this might look. Rather, my understanding, but I'll be corrected by the New Zealand delegation and others,
including think Columbia and Singapore who worked on this, it was intended as a non -paper to invite consideration of how to link and sequence these instruments. It did not, as far as I can recall, go into the issue of adoption by the health assembly because that would be the only way to advance the work because again, the COP will not be established until a considerable time period.
after adoption of the pandemic agreement by the health assembly. But it did look to the issue of how to link these various instruments and how to ensure two things, timing which meets your needs as member states to address this situation and to advance the interests of equity. And I think Nijer focused on this and it bears a great deal of emphasis, the importance of simplicity
in the sense of both simple to implement and easy to explain to the relevant audiences. These relevant audiences include first and foremost domestic approval mechanisms like parliaments, but it also includes the general public, of course. It also includes all the relevant stakeholders. So these are the considerations that would go into developing
an arrangement for entry into force and for elaborating. the more frankly what we've seen as serving member states in the capacity of legal support is the more clarity on these kinds of issues, the better, including through what can be supportive tables and other formats which facilitate understanding. And putting, even putting tables in an instrument, this is now something where we've seen
Member States being very creative in the case of the IHR, where decision trees were placed in the IHR as part of the normative text. So these are all additional tools which are available to Member States. Thank you. Gerva, do you want to? Quickly to complement on what Steve says is that I do understand that many Member States are concerned by the time frame and because of the nature of the subject.
And one way to reduce the time frame, it reduce the number of ratification required for the entry and force. Now we have 60, but could be 30, and then we save a lot of... Yeah, exactly, and we will save time to not to enter in this who is going to be first and who is going to be second. Thank you. EU, you wanted to come back?
Okay, very shortly because there is Namibia, Australia, Germany, Canada, Indonesia, Slovakia, Japan. I propose to close the list after that because Malaysia, I saw you. Just because they asked to take orders, I asked to wait for their interventions. would respect what I said.
And then we will have to move on to the complementarity between IHR and pandemic agreement. I just want to keep time. I understand that there are many, questions and we can understand that. So we will need to see how we can work on it during the next two weeks. So we will need within the bureau discussion to propose something and I understand that members say they would like some proposals and I can understand that.
And my last point is about the so -called New Zealand paper. I don't want New Zealand to be uncomfortable here, as it is not an official New Zealand paper, and it was prepared with other member states. So of course, it's a very good proposal, so we need to work on it and to see within the Bureau how we could use it for the discussions. And sorry for...
For New Zealand, we didn't want to mention a New Zealand paper, but it was already mentioned, but just to make it clear. Thank you for your understanding. EU, very shortly, followed by Namibia. Yes, thank you very much, Co -Chair. I think the format of a little bit of a debate is useful sometimes, but I mean, we are, course, in your hands. going back to the legal council suggestion that of
then the fix would be to say in the agreement it is not for the COP to adopt, but it's for the World Health Assembly, right? This mandate would not be applicable unless and until the treaty entered into force. So the timeframe problem is still there, unfortunately, unless you see that
that particular mandate is already inherent in the WHO constitution, so it is not necessary to wait. Because if you wait, then you're stuck again with the time frame. You cannot adopt, you cannot have the World Health Assembly adopt before the pandemic agreement is enforced, because that mandate is in one of these articles, so you're stuck. The second problem, which I think is still there, is that even if you, via the
the Constitution, if the WHA adopting the text of protocol and or annexes to the parent agreement, you would be in a situation where the protocol and or the annex comes into force before the parent agreement, which is not, in terms of legal beauty, is not the best you can achieve. Thanks.
Thank you. Maybe it's worth responding because this is a question that comes up often and is in the minds of many. So I think what the EU was suggesting is whether there is some inherent power in the health assembly to adopt an annex or protocol. And there is, depending upon, for example, under what authority of the Constitution that would be. For example, if member states felt
that Article 21 of the WHO Constitution was the right authority to adopt a PABS protocol or even a One Health annex because both fit within the context of standards and regulations for the prevention of the spread of disease, then the health assembly could do that. And then there would be provision made in the pandemic agreement that would foresee that if it was agreed. And there would be provision in those
instruments themselves adopted under 21 for linkage with the pandemic agreement. And then the EU has said, well, wouldn't that create a problem because you would have a regulation on PABs or regulation on one health enter into force before the pandemic agreement possibly if that happened. And that could be managed by the entry into force terms for a
for an instrument on PABs or an instrument on one health. Remember, the WHO constitution doesn't specify entry into force for regulations. You have the same flexibility as for any other entry into force provisions to condition entry into force of a regulation on some additional conditions. One of those conditions could be entry into force of the pandemic agreement.
it is possible to sequence that. There's another way, for those of you who are thinking, well, what if we don't want to use Article 21, would there be inherent authority of the WHA? One possibility is you could have provisional application of a provision of the pandemic agreement that said the health assembly with respect to these two substance areas may adopt a protocol
or may adopt an annex, but thereafter, only the COP will have competence to adopt once it's established further protocols and annexes. the mechanism of provisional application could be used with respect to ensuring clarity and support for the health assembly acting in advance of entry into force of a pandemic agreement.
acting on additional instruments. Again, there are two examples for where the parent convention was negotiated side by side with protocols, one in the disarmament area and one in the human rights area.
Thank you very much. Very useful. So we see that we can add some additional provisions for entry into fourth actually. The next on my list is Namibia followed by Australia.
Yes, many thanks Poche for the opportunity to intervene and good morning to you and to the colleagues. We wish to also thank the legal council for the briefing, the informative briefing document and as well as the presentation. Namibia would like to express its preference for the pandemic agreement to be adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution.
With respect to the PEBS instrument presented by legal counsel, my delegation is of the view that there should be complementarity and coherence between the PEBS and its operational elements and the pandemic agreements so that they are both adopted at the same time and enter into force at the same time. And I think the explanation that was provided just now by Steve would really
sit well with us in that it is possible for that to happen. We believe that the PEBS is a crucial part of the pandemic agreement and is a very important way that equity can be operationalized through the PEBS. Thus, support or we do not support that the PEBS be adopted or enter into force later.
than the pandemic agreement, which would be the case if we were to consider adopting it as a protocol in our reading. so therefore we would support the PEPs be adopted as an annex. This would also ensure that there is no fragmentation between the two. We take note of course of the inputs or the responses that were provided.
by legal counsel in response to questions that were already posed by delegations. We just have a few questions to ask just for the purposes of clarity. Number one, would defining the full PADS system as a PADS instrument not commit the INB to the PADS being adopted as a protocol, seeing that a protocol is a space
separate instrument, whereas an annex is still part of the pandemic agreement. And as such, would we then have to change the term, perhaps, instrument to perhaps a PEBS annex, for example, if we were to proceed with the annex route. The second question is, we just need some clarity with regards to the...
the financing for the implementation of an annex versus a protocol. Because in our reading, a protocol, of course, would be a separate instrument. And so it would follow that a separate financing mechanism would apply. Is our understanding correct? And could legal counsel perhaps provide examples of protocols that have used sort of the same financing mechanism?
as the parent instrument or is it by and large that if you earmark the instrument as a protocol to a parent instrument that they usually have a separate financing mechanism? And then just the last question is how would the work of the egg week be influenced if we were to go with either an annex versus the protocol? I think
Steve, we appreciate really your responses in addressing this question. I know you made reference to the New Zealand non -paper. New Zealand did, I think, also indicate that they would have to consult, if I recall correctly, they would have to consult their capital to see whether we could have access to this. I think...
Given the discussion we are having, it would be quite helpful for delegations to have access maybe to that non -pater just so that we can see and appreciate the various options. Of course, I think given the response by Steve also, we would also prefer, I think that the perhaps
instrument of the PEPS NX be adopted by the World Health Assembly and not have to wait for the COP to convene. So I think I'll yield there for now and we look forward to receiving the responses. Thank you. Thank you very much. Before giving the photo Steve for answers, just two comments. Please don't talk about the New Zealand paper because it's quite uncomfortable for New Zealanders.
We will call it non -paper. Okay, we will change the title, but please. And of course, that could be great if it could be circulated as a non -paper. So we will have the discussion within the Bureau, but please respect New Zealand. Second, I think we, of course I'm speaking under your control, Steve. I think we need to make a difference between the legal basis instrument
annex or protocol, and the PAPS instrument, which is a more general term. So I think that we need to be very careful to change the name of PAPS, PAPS instrument versus PAPS annex. think it's not a question actually. We will come back later this afternoon with Ambassador Trova. But I don't think that it is a question. There is a legal question and there is the instrument that we want to implement and we shouldn't
the two topics which are quite different. Steve, two questions for you first. If protocol is a separate instrument, is there any consequences on the financing mechanism? And the first question is, if there is a protocol, is it adopted later or can we include some provisions in the entry into a force to make sure that the PAPs
will be able to enter into force at the same time as the PAPS, is what Naby mentioned.
Okay, yes, so on financing, and thank you, Namibia, for the questions. It's very helpful. On the financing, a protocol could specify the financing mechanism that was relevant to it. So it could point to the parent instrument. And while I don't have a precedent off the top of my head, in theory, in principle at least, it could point to
one or more financing mechanisms that might be outside the parent. So I think this is again a term which would rest with the decision of the negotiators to any such instrument. On the, I think you asked whether the nomenclature of instrument or protocol or annex, could that influence the IGWIG? Absolutely it could.
So this goes to the point, an important one I think, that the question of protocol, annex or other, is indeed something the IGWIG could itself address. This could be part of the mandate to the IGWIG. It is not necessary in a legal sense, it may be in your political judgment, but it's not necessary as a legal sense to commit to that at this point and indeed it is within your power to assign that decision.
to the IGWIG. And then I might say that I think the question of sequencing, I think, really focuses on, as we in the Secretariat have seen it, and we'd welcome being further advised to support you, the focusing on sequencing really addresses what member states seem interested in in terms of one,
locking in the negotiating gains you have made on the pandemic agreement and locking that in soon. Indeed, that's what the health assembly said, as soon as possible or by the next health assembly. And that has to be seen in light of what you've also been saying, what we've been hearing, that you need the time to get the complex issues under PABs and One Health correct. And you may not have the time between now and the end of the year.
or now and the next health assembly to get all those detailed issues correct. So you want to lock in gains, you want to get the time for these additional issues, and you want to maximize adherence to every, among the new instruments, the pandemic agreement, anything on PABs, anything on One Health, and you want to ensure coherence with the IHR. And Egypt has raised a number of questions about specific compatibility, Article 11, and disclosure.
time disclosure sequencing. How would that compare? these are all essential, and you want to keep it simple because there's presentational issues. So these are all essential considerations. And to allow them to all be satisfied, the answer is legally this is possible, to satisfy all them. They are not necessarily in
tension with each other that is not resolvable. There may be tensions among these, but those tensions are resolvable. Thank you. We just need to work on it. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, Madam Co -Chair, and congratulations on your assumption of the Co -Chair. We are very happy to be in the experienced hands of this now fully gender -balanced Bureau. We want to join others in thanking you and the Secretariat for the work to pull together last week's dialogues and also the two information papers which are indeed helpful to inform the discussions that we need to have in this final phase of our negotiations.
We listened carefully to the excellent contributions of the resource persons last week on this crucial issue of the legal architecture for the agreement and there were a couple of points that we wanted to make. The first is that it's clear there's no one correct answer. We don't have a single obvious path forward here but there are, I think, clearly identifiable pros and cons of different options. We need to take
considered decisions on a legal structure and process that meets our collective objectives. We heard and appreciated the willingness of several of the academic resource persons to provide written contributions to support us in making informed choices and we would strongly suggest that we take up that offer and invite at least one or two of the experts perhaps even working together to give us some additional notes on all the available options and their advantages and disadvantages. The second
point to emphasize is the need for a considered and holistic approach as we move forward. We need to move fast, but if we rush to agree articles in isolation, we could actually undermine our overall objectives. A point that comes to mind that's already been mentioned today and in the dialogue is that in the push to settle chapter three, we greened in article 30 providing for annexes that are essentially the same as amendments in article 29, rather than giving us another tool in our toolbox.
So it's something we may need to reconsider. The articles that are relevant to this architecture question are not all in our program of work for this session, but we need to keep an overall view even as we're focusing in on specific key provisions. And we would note that another important article referred to by several of the resource persons on this topic is Article 21 on the COP, where a key point to settle is the arrangements for monitoring of implementation.
that are so important in making our agreement effective and actually achieving its objective. And just a final reflection at INB9R, or was it RR, our last negotiating session, we were in race mode. We've been granted a little bit of additional time, not a lot, but it's a gift we need to use wisely, we need to carefully consider what we're creating. And we did appreciate the reminder from, I think it was Professor Taylor that
An agreement like the one we're negotiating is often considered impossible until it's done. It's not impossible. We need to trust each other. We need to draw on the expertise that's available to support us and make very carefully considered decisions to meet the heavy responsibility on us to deliver the best possible outcome for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Germany followed by Canada. Thank you, co -chair. First of all, I'd like to, or we would like to thank the entire Bureau for the interactive dialogues last week, which were very, very helpful. And I think we will draw lots of lessons on them. This was really highly appreciated and will bring us forward. It's good to be back after a long summer break with good spirit. And it's, I think, also good to discuss
the legal architecture obviously striking and we need this debate. To be very honest with you, being a lawyer by profession and having been trained in international law decades ago, have to confess, protocols, articles, annex and amendments are completely confusing to me. And I think it's, to some extent, we are looking at the function now and less at the form. We're looking at the form and less at the function.
I think it's important, I mean this non -brainer form for functions is important at this stage. When two clients come to a lawyer and say I'd like to sign a specific contract form, a very specific one, the first thing the lawyer would do is wait a second, what do you want to achieve in substance? And then we will pick the right form. We will construct the legal architecture for your means and not the other way around.
what I'm trying to say here is there are lots of specific questions that we need to answer in order to allow all of us, specifically the legal to provide us with the right mechanism for it to achieve our goals. There are a couple of avenues that we need to answer. Membership, do we need an inclusive membership where for PAPS and One Health, et cetera, we have the same, more or less the identical membership as
with the main treaty, what about the entry into force? Should they all enter into force at the same time? Or differently, what about the two mechanisms? Should they work in parallel? Or do they have different legal natures? Or do we allow member states to cherry pick in between the main instrument or the two follow -up instruments?
also the governance structure. Do we want an exclusive governance structure? Do we want to add for further fragmentation? Or do we find a specific or do we have a common interest in setting up a governance structure where they are all more or less aligned in one governance, obviously knowing that potentially there are different memberships? What about finances? Do we want to create new assessed contributions for an instrument or follow up instruments? Or maybe not.
think we need to focus on these and we need to answer these specific questions in a structured dialogue. And I think legal can help us which questions those are in order then at a second step clarify do we need Article 19, 21, protocol, annex, amendments to find the right legal architecture to serve our needs. Thank you. Thank you, Germany. Canada followed by Indonesia.
Thank you very much, co -chair. First of all, we would like to congratulate you, Ambassador Ampereau, on assuming the co -chair role. We're very happy to see the composition of the Bureau now, and we would very much like to take this opportunity as well to thank the Bureau as a whole for their work, the intense work that is going to come in taking us through this final stage of reaching a pandemic agreement. And that work included the
the sessions last week with the resource persons, which we very much appreciated. We felt that sort of expert input will be essential in getting to the conclusion that we need. like Australia, we would welcome further contributions of the resource persons. At this point, we would like to highlight a few principles as we think about how to craft the way forward on the topics at hand right now. And by way of following
on Germany's comment about form versus function and getting the answers to the questions, the policy questions right first in order to establish what the legal form should be. We have a few comments regard to principles. Our answers to at least some of those questions, certainly not all of them. To start with, the matter of consent.
The annexes and protocols currently are, as per the green text, structured in a way that respects sovereign consent. We would say this needs to remain the case, that a state can only be bound by a treaty if it has given its explicit consent to be bound. Therefore, any amendments, protocols, or annexes would need to require acceptance. A COP decision
must not automatically bind parties without consent. A second point on inclusiveness. All member states should be involved in developing the content of the instruments. The initial plan to establish EGUIGS would facilitate inclusion, but we would need to consider further the implication of the pandemic agreement entering into force on participation in the development of annexes and protocols. Third,
point would be the element, the consideration of fragmentation. For purposes of any additional instruments, we consider that annexes or protocols are preferable over regulations under Article 21 in order to limit fragmentation. Given the interlinkages between potential separate One Health and PABs instruments with other articles such as the prevention article and the supply chain and logistics articles,
There should be links to the pandemic agreement and not to a separate instrument. And finally, a point on broad adoption and parity. We, like everybody, would encourage broad adoption and an articulation of this that would support parity amongst the agreements. And therefore, we'd like to support and really urge the active consideration.
of the use of conditions on entry into force as has been discussed by legal. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Kanda. Indonesia, followed by Japan. Thank you, Co -Chair, for giving me the opportunity to deliver my delegation view and positions on the issue at hand. Let me also thank you and the Bureau, as well as the Co -Chair for conducting very well organized I &B meetings. We all agreed that the pandemic agreement should be legally binding.
At the same time, we cannot compromise the substance and quality of the agreement. It is the only way to ensure strong accountability and establish a robust PPR framework that can withstand the threat of any future pandemics. The agreement should also has to be compatible and coherent with the amended IHR. We recognize the need for consistent use of terminologies, including to clarify context.
and obligations arising from some of the provisions. The Scutchevian information paper has identified instances where coherence is essential. Any necessary adjustment made in this regard should not be construed as reopening the green text. We must particularly prevent the agreement from turning into an HR minus, whereas provisions on equity are weakened or deliberately made less clear.
Now on the options for a PABs instrument, we see the merits to avoid creating an orphan instrument, whereas the PABs instrument is adopted under different article from the pandemic agreement, as well as the complex procedural issues it may entail, including in terms of governance and financing. But we do not fully subscribe to the either or approach, whereas member states have to choose
between strong accountability and universality. We want to ensure the instrument attractive enough for all member states to become its party and implement it faithfully. As such, we are also open to any suggestion on which format the PAB should be concluded, whether it is an integral part or a separate instrument. If it is an annex to the agreement, our preference is to have it
binding to our parties on the agreement and enter into force at the same time with the agreement. And if it is a protocol to the agreement, it should be interpreted together with the agreement. Finally, on the issue of SII, we believe it is too premature to consider the PABA system as an SII now. Our job is to ensure the PABA system is consistent with the objective of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol.
this discussion can take place among the COP or MOP of the Nagoya Protocol once DPA -BS system is operational. Thank you, Kocher. Thank you very much, Indonesia. Japan followed by Malaysia. Thank you, Madam Kocher. Japan would like to underline the following two basic points when it comes to very
important issue of legal architecture. First, this agreement should be negotiated for it to become a truly meaningful one, as it is supposed to strengthen the pandemic PPR. We need to continue reminding ourselves that we should avoid putting into the text any contents which may undermine
may undermine activities to benefit pandemic PPR. That's number one. Second, since pandemics would affect the entire world, it is also essential for us to ensure the universality of this agreement by making it agreeable to as many countries as possible in order to ensure the effective measures for pandemic PPR.
Interactive dialogue and outreach, which was held last week in this context, was very helpful to get a valuable input from resources persons. We should make the most of these inputs to advance future negotiations.
Now, legal architecture. We believe the legal architecture of the pandemic agreement should be considered from the perspective of strengthening the pandemic PPR. In this context, from a legal point of view, ensuring the legal nexus or legal integrity and coherence of the agreement and other instruments is of key to smooth implementation of the agreement in each country.
We also consider it necessary to review the text of the agreement to ensure the coherence and avoid duplication between the pandemic agreement and the amended IHR we have succeeded this year. That said, we have a caveat in echoing what has been said by my distinguished delegates of Germany.
forms questions, protocol, annex, or any legal basis of WHO constitution can be decided after we have gone through all the substance discussions. Because I think the matter relates to how in each country we implement our accountability.
in each domestic constituency or relationship between the legislative branch? That's very important question. So we should be very careful about in deciding what kind of forms, legal basis, we should be taking when it comes to additional instruments and so forth. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Japan. Malaysia followed by Eswatini.
Thank you, Madam Co -Chair. At the outset, we welcome Madam Anne Ecclare as the Co -Chair and Ms. Fleur -Davies as Vice Chair of the Bureau. We thank the Secretary for the Information Paper on the Legal Architecture on the Proposal for the Pandemic Agreement. Allow me to combine together our general comments and specific comments on legal architecture. We are meeting at the background of MPOC's aspects that will be testing commitment to international cooperation
solidarity and equity for the pandemic agreement. The response to -Pox emergency is following familiar trajectory. The parts of the world where the disease is endemic is struggling to address the outbreak with inadequate vaccines or dynastics. The affected countries are now dependent on goodwill of vaccine donations coming from so far of certain countries. We want to move away from current donation model. Hence, Malaysia
is advocating for shaping a fair pandemic agreement taking into current lessons of the -POC outbreak. Malaysia envisions a higher benchmark in pandemic agreement that should ensure IHR plus equity, particularly on equitable access of pandemic related health products and will be operationalized in various articles such as in Article 10, Article 11, Article 12 and Article 13 of the agreement.
As for the matter discussed, we recall the decision at the second IRB meeting that Article 19 of the WHO Constitution is the comprehensive provisions under which the instrument should be adopted without prejudice to also considering the suitability of Article 21. At this stage of negotiations, we would suggest maintaining the same approach. In general, universal applicability of
A pandemic agreement like ISR would be useful to avoid fragmentation of the emergency response. We have heard from the experts that it is conceptually possible if pandemic agreement falls under Article 19 and PEPs as a separate instrument under Article 21 and the complexities can be addressed. The PEPs instrument should allow maximum participation in terms of sharing of the material.
As for health instruments, we prefer to have all the main elements to be included in the article set. Nevertheless, if the NMB agrees to have an annex on pandemic prevention, we recommend a paragraph similar to 12 .3 that details out the provisions that will be discussed in the annex. We understand that many elements are still being discussed and we may need to revisit this question later and decide collectively. I thank you, Madam Cochrane.
Thank you Malaysia. Eswatini followed by Iraq.
Chair, thank you very much for giving me the floor. And from the onset, let me state that the Kingdom of Eswatini aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished delegates of Ethiopia on behalf of the 47 member states of the Africa region plus Egypt. We also would like to thank the INPU Bureau and the WHO Secretariat for organizing the interactive dialogue we had last week to discuss important issues in advance of this session. Chair.
We value the opportunity and sincerely think that the next two weeks are extremely crucial for all of us to strive to reach a meaningful outcome in the negotiations that offer pandemic agreement that will be fit for purpose and operationalize equity as per decision WHA SS2 -21 and as confirmed by INB2 decision A -INB -2 -5. We call for for member states to remain addent to the cause, be hands on deck.
and adopt a more focused approach in addressing the outstanding elements of the draft agreement and close whatever gaps that are there, more especially those gaps that continue to perpetuate health inequities and inequalities in developing countries without, of course, reopening already agreed and greened text. We further call for equity and global solidarity to lie at the heart of our deliberations and decisions, and we ask for good faith, transparency, and trust from everyone involved in these negotiations.
As for the legal architecture, we firmly believe that the pandemic agreement must be anchored and grounded on Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. In other words, we believe that Article 19 of the WHO Constitution is the comprehensive provision under which the pandemic agreement must be adopted. We opine that this will ensure legal certainty and accountability at the highest level. As for the PAP system as proposed under the pandemic agreement,
A Swatini believes that SAE must be an integral part of the agreement so as to avoid any legal incentives but to remain open to persuasion either way noting of course that in our view Article 12 of the agreement is a cornerstone thereof. A Swatini is of the firm view that the operationalization of the PAP system is not dependent on it being called an SII in the same manner as the PIP framework which is in our view
operational and effective. As regards the complementarity and coherency between the amended international health regulations 2005 and the proposed WHO pandemic agreement, we believe that the two instruments must be mutually reinforcing, complementary, coherent, consistent and compatible in every respect so as to ensure that never again shall we experience the adverse effect of any future pandemics like we did with the COVID -19 pandemic.
This therefore calls for making the necessary adjustments to suit the context including the definition and use of terms as appropriate so as to find synergy between the two instruments. Chair, Eswatini remains committed to engage in the negotiations with an open mind and in a constructive manner so as to contribute to a meaningful and impactful outcome that will deliver for the people of the world without leaving anyone behind. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Iraq followed by Uganda.
Thank you, co -chair. I would like to congratulate you and all the co -chairs. And also regarding the PAPs, the discussion was made about making PAPs a protocol or may enter into force after the pandemic agreement as annex. We think that many countries need more
regional discussion about the presentation of Article 12.
and also need to update the national legislations, especially countries are not a member in the Goya protocol. And also to be prepared for the implementation. The implementation require many core capacity to be in developed manner, just like the laboratories core capacity and also the biosafety, biosecurity surveillance.
and AMR capacity. So to ensure the full implementation, we need maybe more time and we support to have a path as annexed to the pandemic agreement. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Uganda, followed by Tanzania. Thank you very much. Uganda congratulates Madame Cochere upon changing your sitting position in the room. We wish you successful leadership in your new role in the NB sessions. We'd to thank the Bureau for the hard work throughout last week in the interactive dialogues. We would like to highlight two articles in the proposed pandemic agreement and just to raise some concerns.
realize that it has also come up in the legal architecture presentation. And for us, wanted to reinstate our position about Article 21 of the Pandemic Agreement. We know it has already been greened. And we must state as a country that we have preference for the Pandemic Agreement to be under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. Our position still remains that the ratification process allows for cabinet discussions, parliament debates,
We had a very terrible experience with domesticating the IHR and we do not want to have another international agreement for public health under that particular arrangement, Article 21 of the Constitution. And then secondly, we realized from last week's discussions and also from the presentation that was just made that
There's a reference to Article 5 of the pandemic agreement and a reference to the One Health instrument. When we last met in May in the NB10, we did not agree on this. And there's a feeling in the room, okay, from my observation, from our observation as Uganda, that this seems to be already an agreed position on the One Health instrument. We are meeting again in September for the NB11, and it seems like we discussing an agreed position on the One Health instrument.
we seek clarity from the WHO legal council about this because as a region we have not yet agreed on this and we would like to reinstate and clearly request that this is really highlighted. There's no agreement on a one health instrument. We thank you.
Thank you very much. Actually, we are discussing the legal architecture and the options member states will have. regarding the Article 12, the PAPS, we will resume the discussion this afternoon and tomorrow, and for prevention and health on Wednesday. So that will be the opportunity to come back to that. But at least to look at the options.
on the table regarding the paper sent by the strict retired. And we can understand that there are many, questions. it's very important to address all of them this morning. Of course, it's a bit longer than expected, even if actually we did expect that, because it's a very important question. Tanzania followed by New Zealand.
Thank you, Chair. The United Republic of Tanzania would like to align with a statement made by Ethiopia on behalf of Africa Group plus Egypt. We would also like to congratulate you for steering us well during this discussion and our appreciation to the Secretariat for their legal architecture paper. United Republic of Tanzania would
prefer the pandemic agreement to be under Article 19 for accountability purpose and resources. Also, regarding the issues of annexes, to be very sincere, we are a bit uncomfortable with the issue regarding on the Article 4 and 5, as we have not agreed.
to whether we should have the e -greek on four and five. And this we see as if it is putting the cat in front of the horse. So we see, we don't see why this kind of advice is given now.
And also taking into consideration that the discussion on annexes, mean the article 30 and 31, mainly greened, mostly greened. So we don't see the need for us to revert back to those discussion again. We prefer the pubs to be
be part of the annexes to the pandemic agreement. Thank you very much, Chair, for giving me the floor. Thank you very much. New Zealand, followed by Kenya. Thank you very much, Co -Chair. And as we're taking the floor for the first time, New Zealand would like to welcome you and...
our Australian Vice Chair, and thank you for your commitment as well as the ongoing commitment of the existing co -chair and vice chairs who have persevered through to another year of these negotiations. We know it's not easy. I just wanted to briefly take the floor. We're pleased to see an interest in an idea that New Zealand developed alongside Singapore and Colombia. This was put forward back in May as an option for member states to consider.
Many delegations have encouraged creative thinking to solve some of the problems that we are facing and New Zealand's always happy to contribute to that. We have no strong position on the questions of annexes or protocols at this stage. We feel that there are vital questions around the content of these provisions that need to be settled and that the legal architecture is something that can be designed to facilitate the substance that we agree. In light of the interest in this non -paper that was
considered that was circulated in May to member states. We would invite the Bureau to use the ideas in it. We're happy to waive any IP on this and take this, as well as the many useful ideas heard from delegations today, in proposing a way forward on the topic of legal architecture. Thank you.
So the new title of the paper, which is very famous, is a way to move forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Kenya, followed by Philippines.
Thank you. Thank you, -Chair, for the opportunity. And I also wish to thank you from my colleagues in congratulating you for the new appointment. All the best. I also wish to thank the Bureau for the interactive dialogue last week, as well as facilitating the various experts in bringing the discussions as we start these sessions.
the first instance, we the architect. We believe that the legal architect is much of the nuts and bolts in the instrument.
the movement around this critical document so that if we are to achieve the two critical issues which were highlighted by the legal in terms of achieving compatibility of the instrument as well as also these critical objectives of ensuring the protocols and annexures coming in to supplement the document.
when we look at the issue of protocols, we understand also that it takes, and as legal put it, it requires an affirmative ratification process, which is a bit independent. And we, as my colleagues have pointed out, we are aligned to having it as an annexure in terms of because we want to achieve what we had mentioned earlier in terms of having a compatible document.
as well as supplementing the instrument, because when it comes to interpretation, you will always read as one document, and when it's a protocol, we would also wish to understand in terms of because we are seeing an instance whereby you will have parties to a protocol, but they are not necessarily part of the main
So, I don't know whether there would be such situations whereby you can have a party joining the protocol, but they're not part of the instrument. But all in all, we are aligned to having it as a lecture so that it is interpreted holistically to achieve the critical components of having a compatible document as well as supplementing the instrument. I thank you, Kocha.
Thank you very much. Sorry, but I'm a bit confused because according to the paper sent by the Secretariat, a protocol is a separate instrument, which is not the case for Annex, but the way to adopt them are the same. There is no different way to adopt them. We can't have the same, so it's up to member states to verify that. But regarding the paper,
There is no difference. So we need to make it clear. Can you just clarify it, Steve, because we need to avoid any confusion here when we compare the two instruments. So there's no difference between an annex and a protocol currently in the draft pandemic agreement in terms of who develops and adopts. Both would be the conference of the parties, the COP, in the current draft.
It is, the annexes would have to come into force through a ratification process, but a protocol could come into force through an agreed entry into force arrangement.
Thank you, because Kenya, in your intervention, what I understood that maybe I'm wrong, you said the contrary. Is correct? So is it clear for everybody? Just to be sure that there is no confusion.
If it's helpful, on page, we can look to page four of the document. So there's a table and the question second, the second question is how were they proposed and adopted? That addresses that they're both the cop. The third question, how did they enter into force? You can see that the terms for entry into force are set out for annexes there and the terms for protocols.
are the requirements for entry into force of any protocol and the procedures for amendment of any protocol are to be established by the protocol. So that's not the case within annex. That's how in the conceptually it is because of this conceptually that you could have entry into force through Article 23 of the WHO Constitution for a protocol that would not be the case within annex. Again, just conceptually.
If I want to sum it up very briefly, there is more flexibility with protocols than with the next.
Philippines followed by Egypt.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We recognize the times of the essence. The world must be ready to act quickly in the face of future health crisis. However, as we aim for timely adoption, we must not compromise on the need for concrete and forcible commitments. To achieve this, the legal structure of the agreement should include provisions that are clear and actionable from the outset with a focus on critical areas such as pandemic preparedness, equitable access to health products,
transparent data sharing and building capacity in weaker health systems. These commitments should be built into the agreement in a way that ensures immediate action and global coordination without stalling important actions on key issues. The Philippines prefers that the substance of proposed related international instruments be integrated as provisions of the pandemic agreement. Although nothing prevents this body from adopting the agreement and mandating additional negotiations for protocols,
We see a potential for further delays if these are to be negotiated as separate instruments. Previous discussions have emphasized that we can be creative in adopting the various options available to us. We must aim for an agreement that can enter into force as early as possible and can be as effective as possible in safeguarding the world against future pandemics. A balanced framework that enables timely action while holding member states
accountable and responsive to global health needs is essential. This includes ensuring that equity remains a guiding principle and outcome. Pandemics will not wait for the world to finalize the instruments, but we must also avoid establishing fragmental global health response mechanisms. We must bear in mind that solidarity depends on our capacity for collective multilateral response in preventing, preparing for, and responding to pandemics in an equitable manner. In line with this,
We believe that relevant instruments must come into force at the same time and in conjunction with a pandemic agreement. To conclude, we favor an equitable pandemic agreement that enjoys the widest possible support and buy -in from member states with strong and foreseeable legal provisions implemented at the soonest possible time. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Niger? No, no, no, sorry. Egypt followed by Niger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, regarding the comment made by the esteemed legal counsel, our legal views, the whole feasibility of the flexibility of protocols rather than annexes very differently.
We prefer resorting to annexes in this treaty or in this agreement rather than additional protocols considering that annexes will be in any case become part of the agreement and have the same legal force. Our understanding is simply is that simply joining the agreement would entail the application of the provisions of the annexes to the state parties without the need for any additional procedures.
Article 29 of the draft agreement, also believe that it should include a specific provision that allows for the amendment of annexes in a simpler or less procedural manner than the procedure stipulated for amending the provisions of the agreement. We hereby second the intervention made by the esteemed representative of Germany. We believe that Bjorn just nailed it to the point. It's very important to figure out what
do we want of this annexes protocol or whatever it is called, he himself, he confessed that he got confused. for us, it is flexible. If it is decided to, between all of us member states, to resort to the option of having an additional protocol rather than annexes, we can consider that
putting in consideration that the current agreement should remain the primary framework and adherence to the additional protocol should not be permitted for non -parties of the agreement. And this is the call for us. Given the examples that Steve mentioned regarding the disarmament and human rights, and he gave very, very valid examples, we here have a very big list of examples.
of precedents regarding the importance of the adherence to the additional protocol just as a subject to being permitted to the nonparties to the agreement. They are very related. So Article 24 of the Kyoto Protocol, Article 92 of the additional protocols to 1997 to Geneva Convention of 1949,
Article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the International Convenant of Civil and Political Rights Concerning the Abolition of Death Penalty. Article 17 of the Optional Protocol to the International Economic and Social and Cultural Rights. And we have a long list. That can go always. So given examples of precedence does not serve the cause. So what we, again, we second what Germany has mentioned. We need to agree within each other.
What do we need of this agreement and how we should stipulate the annexes or protocols or whatever it is called? Thank you very much, Madame Chair. Thank you very much. I'm afraid we'll have to close the list of member states because of time. are running out of time and there are some stakeholders who are supposed to take the floor. So the fourth member states of my list is Niger, Indonesia,
India and Nigeria and I'm very sorry but we will have to close the list. very sorry. I know that it's very frustrating for member states but we are very late. Some of you have already taken the floor many times. So we were trying to move forward to propose a way to move forward and we would like to keep time to listen to relevant stakeholders who have already asked the floor earlier.
So Niger, setavu, followed by Indonesia. OK. Merci, Madame. Thank you, Kocher.
Thank you for your leadership and thank you for the explanation we received from Legal concerning annexes and protocols. In our view, it is quite clear on the basis of the explanation from Legal
that it seems there's not a huge difference between a protocol and an annex.
but there is still some confusion among member states.
though it is clearly indicated that an annex is an integral part of the agreement in question.
and is much more rigid in nature than a protocol, which is an entirely separate instrument. And a protocol is more flexible, relevant to the annex. This is something that we should all keep in mind in order to avoid confusion.
and to avoid unwanted consequences. Secondly, I follow the logic and the explanations we have heard from my brother from Egypt. I do not think we should accept protocols as far as the agreement of this instrument.
If a member state adheres to the instrument they should also be able to adhere to the protocol.
This should be true relevant to other instruments. What we are aiming for is equity. We can achieve it without putting all our eggs in one basket. So we believe that the protocol should not really be on the agenda, even if it's something that is still being discussed. And thirdly,
I think that we are able to put this instrument under the regime of Article 21. We also need to consider Article 19, and we would invite member states to consider these possibilities, the regime of this instrument under Article 21. Thank you very much. Thank you, Followed by India, and the last one will be Nigeria. So, Indonesia.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for allowing us to take the floor again. I would like to reiterate again the importance of avoiding creating the PEPs instrument as an orphan instrument. Whether we will use the annex format or the protocol format, it is essential for us to ensure the interlinkage between that PEPs instrument with the pandemic agreement as it's
mother agreement. Now, Indonesia is open to any suggestion on which format the PEPs shall be concluded, whether as an annex or as a protocol. However, as the principal legal officer has mentioned clearly in his presentation, that the difference between the two based on the current draft is not that significant, notwithstanding the notion that the annex is
the protocol is a separate instrument. The distinguished delegates from Germany also emphasize that we should know what we want in terms of the substance of the PAPS. Only after that we can start to decide what is the most appropriate format for this PAPS instrument. Now, in this regard, for the option of a protocol, Indonesia will support only if the proposed Article 31
The of to that the interlinked between the protocol and the agreement is honored. Now, promote the
the idea that states that are not parties to the pandemic agreement may be parties to the PAPS protocol. This is subject to the adoption of the proposed Article 31, paragraph 5 piece. And for the option of an annex, to our understanding, the notion that an annex is an integral part of pandemic treaty means that the annex will be binding to all parties of the pandemic agreement.
Indonesia proposed to revisit Article 30 to ensure that the annex on PAPS will be binding to all parties of pandemic agreement, not exclusively binding only to states having accepted that annex. Therefore, it will ensure a broad participation of countries in this PAPS annex. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Indonesia. India followed by the last one, Nigeria.
Thank you, Madam Co -Chair. We would again like to reiterate our congratulations to you on your appointment as the new Co -Chair. India would also like to congratulate the INB Bureau for coming a long way in the negotiations and the gains we have made so far. However, we would like to reiterate that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. India feels that adoption of instrument, also the NICs, protocols,
setting up of COP also need further discussion. Right now we are at a juncture when even the answers to these questions are leading to further questions. So we need to come to a conclusion. We support Egypt on its proposal that, I mean, the idea should be that the additional protocols to the instrument, the pandemic treaty and the two protocols we're talking about, PAPS and One Health, should be interlinked.
It cannot be at this point of it cannot be that country which is not part of the main instrument, the pandemic treaty, signatory of other protocols. But however, we would like to see more discussions on that and like, how does it come out in terms of legal engagement between all, how do you say it, how the three instruments are talking to each other. So without seeing that and without having that clarification, probably it would be a difficult decision to make at this juncture.
And they also believe that PAPS is an integral part of the pandemic agreement and should come into force and should be a part of the annexure. I think some of my colleagues have spoken about it previously. also, like, it should be a part of the main agreement, be it a part of the main text or as an annexure, we can discuss it later, but should not as a separate protocol. And Chair, India would like to reiterate that we would like to see
complementarities between IHR 2005 and pandemic agreement which is of utmost importance to us. Thank you. Thank you very much. The last one is Nigeria.
Thank you, Kojya. sometimes, just as India mentioned, sometimes in answering the questions, it appears we also need to have further clarifications on certain aspects of our work. Just to affirm our understanding, we know that the annex is an integral part of the main work.
And so the implication should also be binding. This position has also been highlighted by other member states. And so the issue of protocol, first, based on the Article 31 .1, this actually should not come at this point. In our like responses from the leg, I think that it's supposed to be after the work has been adopted, then a party may then propose a protocol.
And given the legal architecture, which indicates that protocols are separate legal instrument, which presupposes then that it should be voluntary for member states and then does that suggest, as we also are seeing in 5Bs, should it also then be made an integral part? Because earlier the legal council said there's no difference between the annexes and
the protocols. And for us, we know that the issue some of the issues we intend to put in the annexes are very crucial and very important part of the main work. So we would like to have clarification on this, whether we should even be talking of protocol now, or it is when the work has been finished, and then a party may then propose a protocol upon which
those other relevant issues can be worked on and the parties can then agree on forms of community force for the protocol. Thank you.
Thank you, Nigeria. I will open the floor to relevant stakeholders. And maybe Adi and the secretary will want to some details maybe before lunch. I have on my list one...
Eight relevant stakeholders. We will close the list very soon if we want to respect lunch time, especially because we are very late. So I will start with two relevant stakeholders who took the floor earlier this morning. First, panel for a global public health convention. I hope that...
they are still online, followed by Oxfam.
Is that okay?
But then for global public health convention, is that okay for you to take the floor right now? I don't know whether you've got me. My picture has not been, the host has stopped me being in. It needs to be changed. Okay. Good. Okay. think, yes, good. They've now put me in. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you.
I want to focus on the legal instrument on PABs and after the discussion I do that with some trepidation. But the panel that I chair has some views about how this should all work. And what we believe is that as long as the principles about PABs and firm commitments about what it's going to achieve are set out in the pandemic agreement, then the best way forward
would be also to have a protocol which would cover the technical and operational matters in the PABs. Now, the reason we think that is there two reasons. The first is time, your time. We need to get the pandemic agreement done and agreed as quickly as we possibly can now. If you spend a very long time dealing with technical and operational issues in PABs,
and trying to resolve those, that is going to take a great deal of time, again, and more delays. I was very reassured that Steve Solomon said that the way you can do it with a protocol means that you can set up provisions back into the pandemic agreement that would make sure that you don't get additional delays happening in putting it into place. So that was one reason. But for us, more importantly,
The issue is about the membership and the numbers. Now, we all know that quite a number of countries may well not ratify the pandemic agreement. And what the protocol can do is to allow countries which are not state parties to sign up to the protocol. And as again, the lawyers have told us repeatedly, this has been done in other treaties as well. It's not something new.
I do believe that we really should move to a protocol to be setting up for a bit to be established and getting on with that work separately from your own incredibly important work to get this pandemic agreement through in a very short period of time now. So thank you for all your comments and my understanding of the instruments has increased enormously even the course of this morning. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Just for the days because translators, we would like to thank them. Thank you very much. They will have to have a break. So one more relevant stakeholder and we will have to resume at two. With the other relevant stakeholders, we are not able to take the floor to finish that point. I think it's very important to listen to stakeholders.
And then we will move to the complementarity between IHR and pandemic agreement before starting Article 12. So that will change a bit the work program of the day because we are very late. But at least we need to finish this point, which is a very important one, to address the...
complementarity between IHR and pandemic agreement and then we will start the article 12th afternoon. Sorry about that. So I will give the floor to Oxfam who will be the last one and we will resume at two. Oxfam, you have the floor. Thank you. Oxfam would like to highlight few issues that we think are essential in negotiating legal architecture of the agreement.
So first, the starting point of any effective pandemic agreement is legally binding commitment to innovation and access for all people at the same time. Hence the PAP system is the cornerstone of protecting public health. It is not a way to incentivize pharmaceutical companies. Second, whichever architecture you choose, it must have legally binding obligations that are clear
on sustainable production supply and access to products, including enabling regional production via commitment such as technology transfer, overcoming IP barriers, and linking benefit sharing to passage and access. Three, in all your deliberations, we strongly recommend that you continue considering how the agreement be implemented in real life situations such as the current monkeypox crisis.
mentioned by number of delegates here. DRC and other affected countries are encouraged to carry out surveillance, sequencing, and to share the material and data as soon as possible. However, there is no corresponding commitment that they would have a share in the existing or pipeline products resulting from such sharing. Clearly, this situation does not enable public health
does not protect public health in DRC or beyond. Africa now has to rely on vaccine donation. Although donations have a role in facilitating immediate relief, they are not an effective public health policy as years of evidence shows. Force cop delays or fragmentation of the agreement by separating the PAP system, risk a repetition of COVID and impacts
and potentially a worse situation. Perhaps should be integral to the agreement. Finally, it is critical that the pandemic agreement is inclusive, ideally for all WHO member states. Passagens spread without visas, and thus all the measures to deal with these passagens have to be by all and for all. Thank you. Thank you very much.
So we will have the break. I think that we all deserve the break. We didn't have any break this morning. This afternoon and tomorrow maybe we will have, we try for breaks I think is good for our health. So we will resume at two with four points. Third World Network, Knowledge, Ecology International, Action for Animal Health Coalition, South Center, DCV and
and Sparked Street Advisors. Thank you very much and have a good break.
[END]
Signed sealed delivered.
Attempted to sign it, did not appear to go through, 10 signatures at the moment thank you