13.9 Pandemic influenza preparedness: sharing of influenza viruses and access to vaccines and other benefits: report on the work of the Advisory Group

Document A65/19
See WHO Watch report of EB130 Discussion
See WHO Watch comment at WHA64

Report of WHA65 Discussion

Under this agenda item, Member States discussed the implementation of the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) framework on access and benefit sharing of influenza viruses, agreed last year as the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA).

There was general satisfaction among MS of the work of the Advisory Group, and calls for speeding up the process of putting the SMTAs into action. Several MS called for strengthening surveillance capacity at national level as part of the preparedness plan investment they wish to benefit from.

Nepal, speaking on behalf of South-East Asian Region (SEARO), was confident that the implementation of the framework will promote equity. Nepal commented on the fact that one year has passed since the adoption of the framework without being actually implemented. Nepal requested the DG to report to the 66th WHA and subsequent two WHAs via the EB on progress at this front.

Thailand, which aligned itself with the statement of Nepal, requested the DG to accelerate this work. Thailand noted that there is currently no global or MS mechanism to regulate research in this field, and urged the WHO to work with MS and other key parties to move forward on a mechanism to safeguard public health agaisnt potential negative consequences.

Denmark, speaking on behalf of the EU, welcomed the recommendations made by the Advisory Group, in terms of working more towards preparedness than response, hence supporting the proposal to use 70% for preparedness and 30% for response.

China mentioned that its experts participated in drafting the report concerned. With the support of the WHO, China has made remarkable progress in surveillance and preparedness, it noted, and will continue to participate and support global surveillance and make donations to international vaccine reserves.

Brazil highlighted the role of the PIP advisory group as a central in the implementation of the framework. Brazil appreciated the way the advisory group is conducting dialogue with industries, and noted that sharing of knowledge and technologies with developing countries is crucial. In Brazil’s view, partnership contribution is crucial, and this could be a good example also for our discussion on the reform process.

Ivory Coast highlighted the importance of access to vaccines particularly during pandemics, and encouraged equitable distribution of benefits. It called for WHO support in strengthening surveillance.

The USA said they remained strongly committed to the PIP framework and looked forward to its implementation. They reminded MS of the financial responsibility contained in the PIP framework, noting they were themselves financial contributors to the process. The delegation was pleased that during advisory meetings WHO has found ways of including other stakeholders, noting the importance of the involvement of industry and civil society.

In a joint statement, some public interest civil society organisations (CSOs) (Health Action International, Third World Network, Berne Declaration and PHM) expressed their disappointment regarding the fact that over the past one year, not SMTAs have been exhanged, although biological materials have been shared. They demanded to have timelines within which WHO will implement. They also said that the Secretariat should provide details of what will be included in pandemic preparedness, and stressed that for equity, there's need for transparency, requesting for the publication of the annual report.

The WHO’s Secretariat’s response was by Dr. Keiji Fukuda who noted that the PIP framework is the first of its kind, and would help to democratise the process among MS. He said the process is moving forward with all possible speed; however it is challenging. He mentioned the publication of hood-handbook on PIP framework which is available in all official languages as well as a website. In response to questions about SMTAs, Dr. Fukuda said that discussions have been raised between the DG and CEOs of several corporations, and these companies recognised the importance of the framework and its implementation. These discussions will expand to involve more companies, including in developing countries.

In her concluding remarks, the DG said that the WHO is in a difficult situation in terms of proceeding with partnership regarding financing. The DG wanted to be “careful” in the way the WHO discusses financing with industry in order to avoid conflict of interest, particularly after calls from the civil society to speed up the process.

The Assembly noted the report of the Advisory group.

During the 131st session of the EB which followed the WHA, there was a brief discussion of PIP, where EB Members reiterated the views expressed during the Assembly.

Morocco said they liked to expedite conclusions on SMTAs, and called for a focus on equity considering the vulnerability of some countries.

Likewise, China called for strengthening surveillance and country capacities, while giving the DG flexibilities for outbreaks.

On a different note, the USA asked about the specific uses of the framework funds and how stakeholders will be consulted during the process.

See Statement read on behalf of HAI, Berne and TWN