“Global Disparities in Costs Threaten to Divide Nations Ahead of WHO Pandemic Treaty Talks”

London – International health officials are convening next week in Geneva to discuss a treaty aimed at pandemic prevention. However, the key issues on the table include a contentious debate over funding for developing countries and strategies to prevent zoonotic pathogen spillovers from animals to humans.

The gathering, which kicks off on Monday, is part of the ongoing negotiations within the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish a legally binding accord addressing pandemic threats. More than a dozen sources familiar with the discussions reveal that major sticking points revolve around the financial commitments required to address the risks associated with pathogens emerging from wildlife. These risk factors, disproportionately affecting developing nations, encompass deforestation, climate change, rapid urbanization, and the wildlife trade.

Previous discussions regarding the proposed treaty, initiated two years ago, primarily focused on strengthening healthcare systems’ preparedness. In contrast, next week’s discussions are intended to emphasize prevention. Many health experts argue that preventing potential pandemics is just as critical as preparedness.

Chadia Wannous, a global coordinator at the World Organisation for Animal Health, an intergovernmental body in France involved in the treaty discussions, stated, “We will see more pandemics and more severe outbreaks if we don’t prioritize prevention.”

Zoonotic spillovers are the primary source of infectious diseases in humans. COVID-19, Ebola, Nipah, and other lethal diseases are caused by or closely related to viruses found in wildlife, particularly among tropical bats.

According to recent studies conducted by Reuters, the number of people residing in high-risk areas for spillovers, mostly in tropical regions rich in bats and experiencing rapid urbanization, increased by 57% over the two decades leading up to 2020. Nearly 1.8 billion people, or one in every five individuals on the planet, now live in these high-risk areas.

Since the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, global health officials have been working towards the creation of a “pandemic treaty” to better prepare for future outbreaks. Delegates from each of WHO’s six administrative regions worldwide have been chosen to lead these negotiations, aiming to establish an agreement by May 2024. However, governments remain divided, particularly regarding information sharing, cost distribution, and vaccine access, issues that hampered a coordinated global response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

These divisions were exacerbated in June when the European Union negotiated vaccine agreements with pharmaceutical companies for future pandemics, leading to accusations of “vaccine apartheid.”

The initial draft of the proposed treaty, to be discussed in Geneva, highlights the current disparities between rich and poor countries. It cites “the catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease.”

Despite widespread agreement on the necessity of pandemic prevention, negotiators remain at odds over the specifics. The primary hurdle ahead of next week’s meeting, as revealed by officials interviewed by Reuters, revolves around financing for developing countries. These nations, already grappling with limited resources for strengthening their public health systems, require additional funding for preventive measures. This could entail enhanced surveillance for emerging diseases, efforts to combat deforestation, and increased oversight of development in areas susceptible to spillovers.

The Reuters spillover analysis identified that nearly all of the highest-risk areas are situated in low- and middle-income countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Nevertheless, much of the deforestation and development in these regions is driven by demand for minerals, food, and raw materials from wealthier countries. This shared responsibility, and the resulting shared consequences, argue for shared expenditures, according to some officials.