13.02 Implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005)

Posted Tue, 2011-03-15 19:23

The focus of this item will be Document A64/9, 'Implementation of the International Health Regulation (2005)' 

The Assembly will also consider the Report of the Review Committee on the Functioning of the International Health Regulations (2005) in relation to Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 (A64/10).  This is a sensitive matter in view of allegations that WHO over-reacted to the H1N1 pandemic and suggestions that the alleged over-reaction was due to advocacy from the vaccine manufacturers.

The IHRs date back to agreements which antedate WHO regarding states' obligations in the event of communicable disease outbreaks.  During the 1980s and 1990s it had been agreed that the IHRs needed to be reviewed but it was only after the SARS crisis in 2003 that the process was given priority attention and out of this process the new IHRs (2005) emerged.  

The IHRs are particularly significant for the future of the WHO.  They are one of two 'treaty making powers' that distinguishes WHO from the other foundations, funds and corporates swimming in the over-crowded see of 'global actors' in global health governance. The other base for treaty making is the framework convention as used in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 

The Review Committee found no evidence of malfeasance by Secretariat in relation to the management of H1N1 pandemic and no evidence of inappropriate influence from vaccine manufacturers.  

However, the Review Committee makes a number of very significant criticisms of the Secretariat's management of the H1N1 pandemic (see especially clause 33 of A64/10. 

The report states that many member states are not prepared for the implementation of the IHRs.

In Committee A the report of the Independent Review Committee was welcomed by most countries participating in the discussion.  Recognition of how much work is required to put in place the capacity for implementation in a future pandemic. In light of the recent nuclear accident in Japan many nations also expressed concern that the IHRs do not adequately address nuclear and chemical hazards.
 
Some comment were made on the proposed delay in deadline for fully achieved core capacity in all Member States.  The review committee had recommended that the deadline for full capacity be extended until 2014 with the possibility of a further extension to 2016.  Mexico suggested that the extensions are too long.  Samoa commented that the definition used for core capacity was unclear.  Some comment on the financial instrument proposed. Bangladesh however welcomed the extended timeline citing the poor progress made since 2005 as justification.
 
Attention was paid in a few statements to the review committee's recommendation that a Global contingency fund should be established to finance low and middle income nation's responses to disease outbreaks.  Australia wished to know if the fund wasbto be actual or virtual.  The Bahama's suggested that effort must be made to consider how contributions will be made to the fund, empahasing that those who will most needed the fund will be least able to contribute to it. USA and Canada expressed concerns about the financial implication of the report's recommendations.  Mexico supported an investigation into its establishment   Alergia, Brazil and Cameroon voiced support for the proposal.  Cameroon further added that they would like to see the fund given an independent 'legal personality'.  In response to these comments Dr Fukuda on behalf of the the secretariat recognised the committee's call for 'more details'
 

During the session numerous ammendments were suggested.  Finally the A64/10 was accepted with ammendments.In Committee A the report of the Independent Review Committee was welcomed by most countries participating in the discussion.  Recognition of how much work is required to put in place the capacity for implementation in a future pandemic. 

See more about the IHRs.

‹ Go to previous page up Go to next page ›