An Effective Pandemic Agreement Will Not Be Popular. And That Is Not Bad News

In the next pandemic, it will be pointless for us to barricade ourselves into our own countries with our national plans and resources if the pathogen can spread freely among our neighbours.

The first doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were administered in January 2021, kicking off a historic vaccination campaign and marking the beginning of the end of the first major pandemic of the 21st century. A couple of months later, on 30 March 2021, twenty-five world leaders together with the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, and the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, called for the creation of an “international pandemic treaty”. Perhaps they anticipated that, in spite of the devastation wreaked by the COVID-19 pandemic and the repercussions it would continue to have for many years, the experience of the pandemic alone would not be sufficient to secure the broad agreements needed to ensure the governance and financing of pandemic preparedness and response efforts.

No One Now Expects a Binding Pandemic Treaty …

More than three years later, negotiations are still under way without significant progress being made on reaching what is now called a “pandemic agreement”. The current commitment, following the 77th World Health Assembly, is to finalise an agreement within the next twelve months. In the course of the negotiations, expectations for what an international pandemic preparedness treaty might look like have been tempered. At this point no one expects that the result will be a binding treaty that could impose real obligations on the signatory countries on such matters as vaccine distribution or knowledge transfer. Optimistically, we could hope for a declaration of intent under which concrete action would depend on the willingness and good intentions of future political leaders. The more pessimistic view is that the agreement will once again be postponed or possibly never approved or signed.

Solutions are never national and no one is safe until everyone is safe

The window of opportunity opened by the pandemic is closing. Despite the achievements of recent years—such as the creation of the Pandemic Fund—there are not enough sustainable and binding mechanisms to ensure the proper governance and financing of global pandemic preparedness and response efforts. We must act urgently to create broad agreements at all levels between different actors. To contribute to this effort, ISGlobal, the Spanish Embassy to the United States of America and the Center for Global Development (CGD) organised a seminar on 14 May entitled “From Negotiation to Action: Strengthening Governance of and Building Financing for Pandemic Preparedness and Response”, bringing together high-level experts and practitioners to exchange ideas on the governance and financing of pandemic preparedness and response initiatives.

Everyone wants to coordinate. No one wants to be coordinated

… But no one wants to repeat the experience of COVID-19

The atmosphere at the event, was one of cautious optimism. All the actors present, including the European Union, the US government, the World Bank and the Spanish government, emphasised their commitment to the governance and funding of pandemic preparedness and response. This dynamic is a good reflection of the international mood: we all want to improve our pandemic preparedness capacity. No one wants to repeat the experience of COVID-19. For now, the political will and funds are available and the investment is quite cost-effective, given that for every dollar invested by the Pandemic Fund, the recipient countries raise six more. So what is the obstacle to reaching effective agreements? Although there are many factors in play, during the seminar, Ciro Ugarte, the director of the Department of Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Reduction of the Pan American Health Organization, offered a succinct explanation for this apparent contradiction, referring specifically to why there are no effective international coordination mechanisms for pandemic preparedness and response: “Everyone wants to coordinate. No one wants to be coordinated” Every country wants to dictate the rules during a pandemic. We cannot forget that during the COVID-19 pandemic the most powerful countries monopolised the resources and dictated international pandemic preparedness and response policies. To agree to “be coordinated” and to abide by common and equitable standards is not an easy or a popular decision because it exposes those countries to a loss of autonomy and the power to directly care for the health of their populations. We may ask ourselves to what degree this reluctance is ethical, but we must agree that it is not practical. In a pandemic, solutions are never national and no one is safe until everyone is safe.

The time has come to pay attention to the scientific evidence, to revisit the pandemic experience, and to make tough decisions. Even if we do not want to.

When the next pandemic arrives—and, let’s not fool ourselves, it will—there will be no point barricading ourselves inside our countries with our own plans and resources if the pathogen is able to roam freely among our neighbours. The time has come to pay attention to the scientific evidence, to revisit the pandemic experience, and to make tough decisions. Even if we do not want to.