The world now has a treaty to address the next pandemic: "We are the most prepared generation in history."

BarcelonaFive years and three months have passed since the first Spanish victim died from a then-unknown infection called COVID-19. The WHO formally approved the first Global Pandemic Agreement this Tuesday. Ghebreyesus concluded.

The agreement has been long awaited, but a more than broad consensus has finally been reached: approval came with 124 votes in favor, 0 objections, and 11 abstentions. Countries have equitable access to medicines, vaccines, and health technologies during pandemics, one of the key points of the treaty. They have access to the benefits derived from it. The distribution of these products in countries will then be based on risk and need for public health, with special attention to the needs of developing countries, and not on budget. This, in fact, was one of the most delicate points due to the reluctance of countries with significant pharmaceutical industries. Thus, the success of the treaty will depend on countries with fewer resources obtaining guarantees of access to the production of medical drugs;

Weaknesses

However, this is not the treaty's only weakness. This is a historic agreement because it represents progress in eradicating inequalities between countries in cases of epidemiological emergencies such as COVID-19, but it is not a panacea. Its Achilles' heel is that, even if a country approves it, it does not entail enforceable responsibilities: while it is legally binding, the loose ends of the most ambitious points of the document—sharing data or imposing sanctions on those who fail to comply, for example—have not yet been finalized. Furthermore, the document makes it clear that "nothing in the WHO agreement on pandemics should be construed as authority" to direct, order, modify, or otherwise prescribe national legislation or to require the adoption of specific measures, such as prohibiting or accepting travelers, imposing vaccination mandates, therapeutic measures, or diagnostics. All of this, coupled with the United States' boycott of the WHO's actions, could make the measure less effective.

Furthermore, a sustainable financing mechanism for the agreement remains to be defined. Although the creation of an international fund is proposed, details of who will finance it, how its resources will be allocated, and how its continuity will be guaranteed are lacking. The treaty is now entering the ratification phase by the legislative branches of the WHO member states.

Reactions

Reactions to the agreement have been swift. In statements to SMC, Jaime Manzano, head of political advocacy and research at the Salud por Derecho Foundation—the only Spanish organization accredited as an interested party in the Pandemic Agreement negotiations—asserts that the consensus reached is a "very positive" sign. He adds, however, that it is only "the beginning of a fundamental phase" that will be "more complex to negotiate," which is precisely how the PABS ultimately materialize. "This negotiation phase will not be resolved in a few days of work," he predicts.

In turn, Quique Bassat, pediatrician, epidemiologist, and director general of the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), affirms to SMC that the agreement represents a "unanimous giant step that will provide solidarity, equity, and, above all, scientific evidence for better shared preparation for the future."