Open letter to the UK Negotiators to the Pandemic Agreement  

Open letter to the UK Negotiators to the Pandemic Agreement  

Date: 15 March 2024
Campaigns: Pharma

To: Rt Hon. David Cameron, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and Rt Hon. Victoria Atkins, MP, Department of Health and Social Care

There is less than two months before the 77th World Health Assembly in May to agree on a prevention, preparedness and response to future pandemics in a Pandemic Agreement. Millions of people in the UK and across the world supported the call for vaccine equity. There was an almost universal public consensus that “No one is safe until everyone is safe”. During the pandemic, the UK was able to develop the life-saving Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, while at the same time, it managed to purchase a vast share of the limited supplies of vaccines manufactured in other countries. On the other hand, many countries in the global South could only wait, as their numbers of dead rose. As diagnostics, vaccines, and treatments emerged, this glaring disparity continued.

Calls from campaigners throughout the world for a global waiver of intellectual property rights on COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics – after the disappointing outcome for the proposed waiver on vaccines – and the urgent sharing of technology and know-how have grown, but they remain largely unheeded. Efforts for Covid-Technology Access Pool (C-TAP) established by the World Health Organisation (WHO) were rejected by pharmaceutical corporations. It took three years for the vaccine license to be shared with C-TAP, by which time the potential to save lives had diminished as the world was already emerging from the pandemic. Governments have not put enough pressure on pharmaceutical companies to share their IP and engage in technology transfer to increase manufacturing in low and middle-income countries to help build a sustainable supply of pandemic tools. Still COVID-19 therapeutics recommended by the WHO remain either unavailable or unaffordable for the majority of developing countries.

It is vital that this situation should not be replicated in future health crises. Countries in the global South must be allowed to develop their independent industry. The continuing lack of equity measures is incompatible with the prerequisites for international collaboration for future pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It is also self-defeating as pathogens do not recognise borders.

The UK must take a leadership role to demonstrate that it has indeed learned from the pandemic and is committed to improve global practice. True leadership means ensuring that  the following principles are included in the amendments that UK negotiators will submit at the 9th Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to be held on 18-28 March that will be considered for inclusion in the final text:

  1. Stronger commitments on technology transfer and removing intellectual property barriers – The Accord must be a mechanism for sharing technology and know-how to scale up and diversify production of vaccines and medicines. The waiver of intellectual property rules in the draft text should not just be a ‘considered’ approach but one that is supported by all parties.  Also, removing IP barriers must not be limited only to pandemic times. This limitation is detrimental to building equitable prevention and preparedness capacity and could prevent a rapid and effective response to global health threats. Ensuring equity should be at the heart of the treaty.
  2. Public health interventions should not depend on the goodwill of pharmaceutical companies – People in the global South should never again have to rely on the goodwill or charitable acts of the private sector to access life-saving medical products. Licensing intellectual property rights, sharing technology and know-how or limiting royalties for their use, should not depend on pharmaceutical companies’ willingness to engage in them. Voluntary agreements are often very limited, ad hoc, and late, leaving decision-making power in the hands of those who profit from medical monopolies. This undermines sound public health policy.
  3. Fair and equitable access and benefit-sharing system – The sharing of biological materials and genetic sequence data of pathogens of pandemic potential for R&D has to be accompanied by a legally binding fair, transparent, accountable and effective Pathogens Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS). If developing countries are required to provide health and pathogen data to help monitor threats and develop countermeasures (access), high-income countries must, for their part, provide equitable access to vaccines, tests, and treatments in return (benefit). In February, the Africa Group and the Group of Equity submitted a proposal for a strong and effective PABS system. We urge the UK to support this proposal, alongside the 72 developing countries already supporting it.
  4. Strict conditions on public funding for research and development – Public interest conditions must apply to any product resulting from publicly funded research and development. It is encouraging to see that these provisions are back in the text but language must be strengthened to ensure they have impact. For example, licensing must be non-exclusive and technology transfer must be fulfilled as a legally binding condition of a public contract.
  5. Expanding manufacturing capacity in the global South – Diversified global manufacturing is vital to ensure equitable access to affordable pandemic products. Sustainable production and supply require investing in independent national or regional capacity. The Pandemic Agreement must include measures guaranteeing that global South governments have the freedom to control the technology, are able to adapt it to local needs, and are in charge of distributing the end products. However, this goal will not be achieved if expanding production capacity is limited to private-sector cooperation and the construction of satellite facilities of pharmaceutical companies that continue to determine products’ production, price, and allocation.
  6. Supporting developing countries through common but differentiated responsibilities – The UK should commit to adequately supporting low- and middle-income countries in meeting their obligations under the Pandemic Agreement. This should be done in recognition of differences in levels of economic development, capacity, and resources among countries.

Lastly, we have concerns regarding the involvement of stakeholders with institutional or vested interests in sub-group meetings as “experts”, while civil society participation is very limited. This approach weakens the spirit of multilateralism in global solution making and is likely to introduce biases into the agreement, so should be discontinued.  Stakeholder participation must be transparent, and we urge the UK to continue championing the full and meaningful participation of civil society and communities in the work of INB, including participation in the upcoming meeting in March and future governance mechanism.

Best wishes,

Global Justice Now and STOPAIDS