Can geopolitics derail the pandemic treaty?

Kickbusch, Ilona; Holzscheiter, Anna

doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-069129

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We believe that only solidarity that is organized and harmonized at a global level, with equal voices by all concerned, would be able to overcome the power positions of Big Pharma manufacturers and their protectionist governments. Tier-4 global solidarity would be globally organized and governed by strong supranational institutions, for instance a much-strengthened WHO, replacing what Kickbusch and Holzscheiter (2021 : n.p.) have diagnosed as a “highly fragmented and often poorly synchronized [global] institutional patchwork.” We admit that post-Covid, this suggestion may appear more utopian than ever, given the powerful after-effects of vaccine nationalism, the dominance of private governance regimes, and the weakness of the WHO as a decision-making organ relative to the WTO.…”

Section: Global Healthcare Inequalities and Technology Transfersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tech sharing, not tech hoarding: Covid-19, global solidarity, and the failed responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry

Geiger

Gross

2023

Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of health technologies to mitigate against the spread of the disease and improve care, dominantly including life-saving vaccines. But the pandemic has also highlighted that the current biopharmaceutical business model, based on the enclosure of these technologies and on the immense accumulation of capital it enables, leads to vast inequalities in healthcare particularly in low and middle-income countries. We believe that the pharmaceutical industry has a moral duty to enable and enact global solidarity through tech sharing instead of tech hoarding, but judging by current technology transfer practices we question their willingness to assume their role in organizing healthcare markets through solidaristic principles. In the absence of a voluntary adoption of solidaristic principles and practices by biopharmaceutical firms, the institutionalization of global solidarity as a fundamental organizing principle for healthcare markets is necessary to strengthen resilience and know-how globally. With this call, we add to existing conceptualizations of solidarity by (a) introducing a global level of solidarity and (b) thinking through the concept not as an abstract humanistic stance but as a concrete organizing principle for global healthcare markets.

show abstract

Section: Global Healthcare Inequalities and Technology Transfersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tech sharing, not tech hoarding: Covid-19, global solidarity, and the failed responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry

Geiger

Gross

2023

Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…She argues with her colleague Anna Hozscheiter that ''geopolitics today is not about a new cold war, but about establishing a new technological order, in which claims to power are inseparable from technology, science, ownership of data, and authority in the digital worldbringing with them new dimensions of inequality.'' 13 As a consequence, an efficient pandemic response requires a global governance response that is able to meet the challenge. Pre-covid existing policy instruments, such as the International Health Regulations, but also new approaches WHO developed like COVAX, have so far been inadequate to guarantee an equitable response.…”

Section: Llmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaccine equity: Past, present, and future

Graaf

Browne

Baidjoe

2022

Cell Reports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A global framework governing pandemic response, perhaps embodied in a treaty or convention, could guide how countries enter into APAs and share the resulting supplies. This is part of a proposal put forward by the European Union and agreed by the World Health Assembly in December 2021 [41,42] although there are also arguments against such a pandemic treaty [43,44]. The analogous WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework created the basis for sharing of influenza virus samples and access to vaccines and could serve as a template to address equity of access to medical countermeasures for other pandemics.…”

Section: Treaty/conventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“No Regrets” Purchasing in a pandemic: making the most of advance purchase agreements

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract“No regrets” buying – using Advance Purchase Agreements (APAs) – has characterized the response to recent pandemics such as Avian flu, Zika Virus, and now COVID-19. APAs are used to reduce demand uncertainty for product developers and manufacturers; to hedge against R&D and manufacturing risks; and to secure availability of products in the face of spiking demand. Evidence on the use of APAs to buy vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, and personal protective equipment during recent pandemics illustrates how these contracts can achieve their intended objectives for buyers. But, transferring risk from suppliers to buyers - as APAs do - can have consequences, including overbuying and overpaying. Furthermore, the widespread use of APAs by high-income countries has contributed to the striking inequities that have characterized the Swine flu and COVID-19 responses, delaying access to vaccines and other supplies for low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs).We identify seven ways to address some of the risks and disadvantages of APAs, including adoption of a global framework governing how countries enter into APAs and share any resulting supplies; voluntary pooling through joint or coordinated APAs; a concessional-capital-backed facility to allow international buyers and L&MICs to place options on products as an alternative to full purchase commitments; greater collection and sharing of market information to help buyers place smarter APAs; support for a resale market; building in mechanisms for donation from the outset; and transitioning away from APAs as markets mature. While a binding global framework could in theory prevent the competitive buying and hoarding that have characterized country/state responses to pandemics, it will be very challenging to put in place. The other solutions, while less sweeping, can nonetheless mitigate both the inequities associated with the current uncoordinated use of APAs and also some of the risks to individual buyers.Analysis of recent experiences can provide useful lessons on APAs for the next pandemic. It will be important to keep in mind, however, that these contractual instruments work by transferring risk to the buyer, and that buyers must therefore accept the consequences. In the spirit of “no regrets” purchasing, having bought what hindsight suggests was too much is generally preferable to having bought not enough.

show abstract

Can geopolitics derail the pandemic treaty?

Cited by 18 publications

References 5 publications

Tech sharing, not tech hoarding: Covid-19, global solidarity, and the failed responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry

Tech sharing, not tech hoarding: Covid-19, global solidarity, and the failed responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry

Vaccine equity: Past, present, and future

“No Regrets” Purchasing in a pandemic: making the most of advance purchase agreements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About