Latest news with #PandemicAgreement
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Business
- Scoop
Salvaging SDGs Still Possible, But Countries Must Act Now: Guterres
21 July 2025 Addressing ministers at UN Headquarters in New York, he called for urgent action to rescue lagging Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) amid war, inequality and fiscal strain. 'Transformation is not only necessary – it is possible,' he declared, highlighting landmark commitments adopted in recent months: the Pandemic Agreement at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, pledges to expand marine protected areas at the third UN Ocean Conference in Nice, and the new vision for global finance agreed in Sevilla at the fourth International Financing for Development Conference. 'These are not isolated wins, they are signs of momentum and signs that multilateralism can deliver.' The remarks opened the ministerial segment of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), the UN's central platform for reviewing the 2030 Agenda and its 17 SDGs. Get back on track Mr. Guterres warned that the world remains far off track to meet the 2030 targets. 'Only 35 per cent of SDG targets are on track or making moderate progress. Nearly half are moving too slowly. And 18 per cent are going backwards,' he said. He urged governments to act with urgency and ambition. 'The Sustainable Development Goals are not a dream. They are a plan – a plan to keep our promises to the most vulnerable people, to each other, and to future generations.' Citing gains since 2015, including expanded social protection, declining child marriage and growing women's representation, he said the SDGs remain 'within reach' if world leaders channel resources and political will. The Secretary-General also linked development and peace, noting ongoing violence in Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, Ukraine and elsewhere. 'At every step, we know sustainable peace requires sustainable development,' he said, calling for immediate ceasefires and renewed commitment to diplomacy. Double down on multilateralism Bob Rae, President of the Economic and Social Council, echoed the SecretaryGeneral's call, warning that global disruption – from climate change to economic disarray – requires deeper solidarity. 'The SDGs are not optional ideals, but rather essential commitments,' he said. 'Now is not the time for us to abandon our ideals…it is now actually the time to double down on our multilateral obligations to one another.' Mr. Rae cautioned that shrinking national budgets and rising nationalist politics are undermining progress but insisted that 'multilateralism delivers real, tangible benefits for people at every level of society.' He called for closer partnerships with civil society, local governments, and the private sector, stressing that SDGs must be 'integrated into budgets and policies around the world, not as at odds, but as the core of how governments should serve their people.' Match ambition and delivery Philémon Yang, President of the General Assembly, emphasized aligning political commitments with concrete action. He praised the Compromiso de Sevilla and last year's Pact for the Future, which aim to reform global financial systems, scale up climate finance, and strengthen international tax cooperation. 'The gap between ambition and delivery can only be closed through solidarity, resources and political will,' he said. 'The deadlines for the 2030 Agenda are fast approaching,' he warned. 'Whether we like it or not. And while progress is lagging, we have the tools and ambition to deliver.' Accountability and partnership The HLPF, established at the landmark Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, serves as the primary UN platform for monitoring SDG progress, including through Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs). This year's forum, convened under the auspices of the ECOSOC, runs until 23 July with a focus on five goals: health, gender equality, decent work, life below water, and global partnerships. More than 150 countries have presented VNRs – with 36 reporting this year – showcasing national efforts and challenges in implementing the 2030 Agenda. Mr. Guterres praised the reviews as 'acts of accountability' and 'templates for other countries to follow and learn from.' With just five years left to meet the global goals, he urged ministers to 'transform these sparks of transformation into a blaze of progress – for all countries.'
UPI
4 days ago
- Health
- UPI
U.S. officially withdraws from enhanced WHO pandemic response
Health workers in biohazard suits treat patients at a drive-thru coronavirus testing center at Seoul Metropolitan Eunpyeong Hospital in South Korea on March 4, 2020. The International Health Regulations Amendments approved on June 1, 2024, by the World Health Organization would allow the WHO to authorize lockdowns, travel restrictions or other measures regarding "public health risks." File Photo by Thomas Maresca/UPI | License Photo July 18 (UPI) -- The United States officially won't be involved in an enhanced pandemic global response enacted by the World Health Organization, the Trump administration said Friday. The International Health Regulations Amendments approved on June 1, 2024, would allow the WHO to authorize lockdowns, travel restrictions or other measures regarding "public health risks" but not require them. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a new release WHO would have the "ability to order global lockdowns" as part of the reforms. A total of 194 member states, including the United States, plus Liechtenstein and the Vatican negotiated the amendments. After taking office for his second term on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump officially announced the United States would pull out of WHO by January 2026. On March 20, WHO member nations by a 124-0 vote adopted the 33-page first "Pandemic Agreement" but the United States didn't participate. This separate agreement from the amendments would strengthen the global health architecture for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response." The amendments are binding Saturday if not rejected by nations, regardless of whether the United States withdraws from WHO. It was adopted by consensus without a vote of the 77th World Health Assembly. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued statements on the formal rejection. Earlier, the Trump administration said it wouldn't adhere to the amendments. "The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic," Kennedy said. "The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America's treasured sovereignty." Kennedy also spoke in a video explaining the action. As did Rubio: "Terminology throughout the amendments to the 2024 International Health Regulations is vague and broad, risking WHO-coordinated international responses that focus on political issues like solidarity, rather than rapid and effective actions," Rubio said. "Our Agencies have been and will continue to be clear: we will put Americans first in all our actions and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans' speech, privacy, or personal liberties." Republicans in Congress applaud the decision. "The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how the incompetency and corruption at the WHO demands comprehensive reforms," Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said. "Instead of addressing its disastrous public health policies during COVID, the WHO wants International Health Regulation amendments and a pandemic treaty to declare public health emergencies in member states, which could include failed draconian responses like business and school closures and vaccine mandates." The amendments define what constitutes a pandemic emergency and how it can be triggered. There would also be information-sharing between countries across the world and WHO. And poorer nations would have access to medical products to "equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries." The COVID-19 pandemic officially killed 7 million people but WHO estimates the toll to be 20 million since the virus was first detected in China in December 2019. Most nations, including the United States, are no longer tracking coronavirus cases, he said. "And on top of the human cost, the pandemic wiped more than US $10 trillion from the global economy," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyes, the director-general of WHO, said.
The Star
08-07-2025
- Health
- The Star
Will the world's first Pandemic Agreement live up to its promise?
Covid-19 was the first pandemic this century. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were 778 million cases globally, with more than seven million deaths as of June 7 (2025). The vast majority of cases occurred in 2020 and 2021. One of the heartbreaking lessons of Covid-19 was that lives and livelihoods were destroyed by an invisible agent that had no respect for borders or anything else. According to the Lancet Global Health 2050 Commission, there is a 50% likelihood of another new pandemic causing 25 million or more deaths between now and 2050. Cognisant of the imperative to do better than during the Covid-19 pandemic, the member states of WHO agreed in December 2021 that a new legal instrument was needed to help countries prevent, prepare for and respond to future global health threats. The work to draft the Pandemic Agreement was long, arduous and divisive amidst increasing global geopolitical upheaval. What it is The Pandemic Agreement was adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) on May 20 (2025). This agreement is only the second legally-binding one that WHO has negotiated after the Framework Convention of Tobacco Control. Many of the delegates at the WHA who spoke prefaced their measured enthusiasm with caveats and cautious hopes, as well as a sense that something was better than nothing, as the Agreement was not as transformative as the majority had hoped for. The Agreement established principles, priorities and targets for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The aim is to: Build resilience to pandemics Support prevention, detection and responses to outbreaks with pandemic potential Ensure equitable access to pandemic countermeasures, and Support global coordination through a stronger and more accountable WHO. A pandemic emergency was defined as such: 'It must be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). 'A PHEIC means an extraordinary event which is determined (i) to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease; and (ii) to potentially require a coordinated international response; being of communicable disease nature; having, or at risk of having, wide demographical spread; exceeding, or is at high risk of exceeding, the capacity of health systems; causing, or is at high risk of causing, substantial social and/or economic disruption etc.; and requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action etc.' The Agreement complements other initiatives, actions and measures aimed at making the world safer from pandemics, including the International Health Regulations, and global systems and institutions working towards equitable sharing of health technologies, information and expertise. It will establish a Pathogen Access and Benefit-sharing System (PABS) to 'enable materials and genome sequences of pandemic pathogens to be shared and aims to promote equitable sharing of any resulting innovations, such as vaccines'. WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (red tie) celebrating the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement by the WHA on May 20. Money and monopolies However, the Agreement stated that manufacturers would have to share only 20% of any vaccines, therapeutics or diagnostics. Although 20% is better than nothing, no one could claim that it is equitable and just. During the Covid-19 pandemic, a few high-income countries had early and excess access to vaccines through bilateral arrangements with manufacturers. This undermined the global Covax initiative and contributed to death and illness in poor countries that were dependent on donations. The Agreement does not stop some countries from again monopolising life-saving measures at the expense of others in the next pandemic. It also does not provide for funding. It encourages states to 'develop and implement national and/or regional policies, adapted to its domestic circumstances, regarding the inclusion of provisions in publicly-funded research and development grants, contracts and other similar funding arrangements, particularly with private entities and public- private partnerships, for the development of pandemic-related health products, that promote timely and equitable access to such products, particularly for developing countries, during PHEIC, including pandemic emergencies, and regarding the publication of such provisions'. There is already a Pandemic Fund and development banks will likely have a role in funding. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism will be established to promote sustainable financing for the implementation of the Agreement. However, how it will operate together with existing financing instruments is unclear. Countries still in charge The Agreement recognises national sovereignty, i.e.: 'Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the WHO, including the Director-General of the WHO, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic law, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.' The issue of accountability is unclear in the Agreement as it states that: 'Each Party shall monitor its preparedness capacities, and periodically assess, if needed with technical support from the Secretariat of the WHO upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacities.' There are no provisions for independent monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. This means that there are no consequences for non-compliance with the Agreement. Selective adherence by WHO member state(s) can undermine the effectiveness of the Agreement. More work needed The WHA established a new body, i.e. the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG), to draft and negotiate the Annex on PABS in Article 12 of the Agreement. It will be submitted to the next WHA for adoption, after which the Agreement will be open for ratification and accession by member states of WHO. The IGWG was also directed by the WHA to initiate steps to enable the setting-up of the Coordinating Financial Mechanism for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, and the Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) to 'enhance, facilitate and work to remove barriers and ensure equitable, timely, rapid, safe and affordable access to pandemic-related health products for countries in need during PHEIC, including pandemic emergencies, and for prevention of such emergencies'. After the WHA adopted the Agreement, WHO's Director-General stated: 'The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our Member States to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement. 'The Agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. 'It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. 'It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during Covid-19.' How the guiding principle in Article 3 of the Agreement, i.e. 'full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons', would be addressed is an open question. The weak requirements on the sharing of health technologies and the vague statements on accountability means that the Agreement is unlikely to prevent a repetition of one of the primary failures in the Covid-19 pandemic, i.e. the uncontrolled acquisition and consumption of crucial resources by a few high-income countries at the expense of the rest of the world. It is unlikely that the current Agreement will ensure an equitable global response at the next pandemic. Anyone who has read it can only hope that it will be strengthened before the next pandemic arrives. While something is better than nothing, more needs to be done. Dr Milton Lum is a past president of the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Associations and the Malaysian Medical Association. For more information, email starhealth@ The views expressed do not represent that of organisations that the writer is associated with. The information provided is for educational and communication purposes only, and it should not be construed as personal medical advice. Information published in this article is not intended to replace, supplant or augment a consultation with a health professional regarding the reader's own medical care. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.
IOL News
19-06-2025
- Health
- IOL News
When it comes to Freedom of Expression, the WHO Pandemic Agreement says nothing
The writer says that the next time a pandemic strikes—and there will be a next time—we cannot look to Geneva for guidance on how to preserve open debate and protect democratic norms. Image: File THE World Health Organization's long-awaited Pandemic Agreement has finally been adopted. At over 30 pages, it is comprehensive in ambition - addressing everything from vaccine access to supply chain resilience. But when it comes to one of the most critical ingredients for effective public health in a democracy - freedom of expression - the Agreement has remarkably little to say. In fact, it says almost nothing. Take, for instance, this key provision: 'Each Party shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies.' This sounds constructive. But read it again. 'As appropriate'? According to whom? And what policies, exactly? The Agreement doesn't say. It offers no guidance on whether open public debate - complete with disagreement, critique, and messy facts - is essential to building trust in science and public institutions. Nor does it warn against the dangers of censorship during public health crises. It simply leaves it to each country to decide for itself what 'appropriate' means. In other words, it takes no position. And this is precisely the problem. In the name of trust, governments during the COVID-19 pandemic did not always build it - they sometimes undermined it. South Africa offers two powerful examples. First, Dr Glenda Gray, one of the country's most respected scientists and then-president of the Medical Research Council, publicly criticised aspects of the government's lockdown measures. The reaction from the Department of Health was swift: the Director-General requested that her employer, the Medical Research Council, investigate her. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This wasn't scientific debate. It was an attempt to silence a dissenting voice. It was only after public uproar that the matter was dropped. Second, consider the ivermectin litigation saga. In December 2020, South Africa's medicines regulator, SAHPRA, triggered a controversy by incorrectly stating in a press release that ivermectin was 'not indicated … for use in humans', despite the fact that the drug had long been registered for certain human indications in South Africa. Some might label SAHPRA's statement as misinformation or even disinformation, but more plausibly, it was simply a careless - though consequential - error by a public authority. Yet the same press release went further, threatening with criminal enforcement against members of the public seeking to import ivermectin - an unnecessarily heavy-handed stance that swiftly provoked litigation. These are not stories from some distant autocracy. They happened here, in South Africa. And they highlight an uncomfortable truth: even well-meaning public institutions can slip into authoritarian habits under the pressure of a public health crisis. The antidote to authoritarian drift - and to official error - is freedom of expression. In Democratic Alliance v African National Congress, the Constitutional Court affirmed that freedom of expression is valuable not only for its intrinsic worth but also for its instrumental role in a democratic society. It informs citizens, fosters public debate, and enables the exposure of folly and misgovernance. It is also vital in the pursuit of truth—both personal and collective. If society suppresses views it deems unacceptable, those views may never be tested, challenged, or proven wrong. Open debate enhances truth-finding and allows us to scrutinise political claims and reflect on social values. This is why the South African Constitution enshrines freedom of expression - not as a luxury for peacetime, but as a safeguard for moments of crisis. Our Constitution was written with the memory of repression in mind. And it is precisely when fear and uncertainty tempt governments to silence dissent that its protections matter most. One might have expected an international agreement on pandemic response to affirm these same values. Yet the WHO Pandemic Agreement retreats into vagueness. It speaks of 'trust' and 'solidarity,' and warns against 'misinformation and disinformation,' but avoids the real issue: how should a democratic society respond when public health policies are contested? How do we protect space for critical voices? Instead of offering a principled stand, the Agreement offers a shrug. Countries are told to act 'as appropriate.' That could mean encouraging open dialogue—or it could mean criminalising dissent. The WHO doesn't say. And that silence speaks volumes. Professor Donrich Thaldar Image: University of KwaZulu-Natal
The South African
10-06-2025
- Health
- The South African
Aaron Motsoaledi hails historic Pandemic Agreement at G20 Health Summit
Health Minister, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, has praised the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement during the 4th Health Working Group meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) held in Johannesburg. This significant international treaty, supported by 124 member states, is only the second international health treaty approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO) since its establishment in 1948. The agreement's adoption follows three years of intensive negotiation launched due to gaps and inequities identified in the national and global COVID-19 response. It aims to boost global collaboration to ensure a stronger, more equitable response to future pandemics. Delivering the welcome address on Tuesday morning, Aaron Motsoaledi celebrated the momentous achievement and emphasised the importance of collective action in ensuring global health security. 'Your presence here today is a testament to our collective commitment to global health security,' he said. Motsoaledi stated that the agreement results from the diligent efforts of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), which was established to develop a legally binding framework for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. 'The stark lessons of the COVID-19 crisis fuelled our collective resolve to forge a more robust and equitable framework, one that ensures international cooperation and protects all nations from the devastating impact of future pandemics,' the Minister told the attendees. South Africa, playing a pivotal leadership role as a co-chair of the INB, worked alongside partners from France and the Netherlands, while acknowledging contributions from vice-chairs representing Brazil, Thailand, Egypt, and New Zealand. The Minister stated that the four key pillars of the agreement are designed to fundamentally transform the global response to health emergencies. The agreement emphasises the importance of equitable access to pandemic-related health products, the establishment of a global supply chain and logistics network, and the creation of a coordinating financial mechanism to strengthen pandemic response capabilities. In addition, the agreement highlights a holistic 'One Health' approach, which stresses the connections between human, animal, and environmental health, which is now a central focus of global pandemic strategies. The Minister said the agreement incorporates a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system, requiring pharmaceutical companies to contribute 20% of production during pandemics in exchange for access to critical pathogen data. This mechanism aims to ensure that all nations benefit from scientific advancements, especially in times of crisis. 'As an active participant and representative member for the African region, I can say with certainty that we see this agreement as a crucial step towards rectifying the deep-seated imbalances in access to life-saving pandemic products that were so painfully exposed during the recent crisis.' Although Aaron Motsoaledi has acknowledged the agreement's adoption as a significant success, there is still much work ahead. 'While we celebrate the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement, our work is far from over. We are now entering a critical new phase.' He urged immediate engagement in further discussions regarding the PABS system, to convene the Intergovernmental Working Group before 15 July 2025. 'Finalising a robust and equitable PABS annex is the ultimate litmus test of our collective commitment. It is the essential next step to transform the Pandemic Agreement from a document of principles into a functional, life-saving tool for justice and our shared global health security.' He has since called for continued collaboration and commitment to safeguarding global health for everyone. This important week-long meeting began this morning and will conclude on Friday, 13 June 2025. The event brings together health leaders, experts, and policymakers from the world's largest economies, invited nations, and international organisations. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
