Equity in the Pandemic Treaty: Access and Benefit-Sharing as a Policy Device or a Rhetorical Device?

Equity is a foundational concept for the new World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Treaty. WHO Member States are currently negotiating to turn this undefined concept into tangible outcomes by borrowing a policy mechanism from international environmental law: "access and benefit-sharing" (ABS).

Exploring the changes and challenges of COVID-19 in adult safeguarding practice: qualitative findings from a mixed-methods project

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present findings from a mixed-methods study on the impact that COVID-19 has had on adult safeguarding. The research sought to explore the challenges and opportunities presented by COVID-19 to both frontline and non-frontline professionals working in adult safeguarding. Design/methodology/approach A mixed-methods project was undertaken comprising a literature review, survey, semi-structured interviews and a small number of freedom of information requests. This paper presents the findings predominantly from the survey and interviews. Findings Unsurprisingly, COVID-19 has presented a variety of challenges for professionals working in adult safeguarding. The themes that occurred most often were the day-to-day changes and challenges, relationships across sectors, information and navigating the ethical questions in safeguarding. Originality/value To the best of the authors' knowledge, the findings represent the first focused qualitative mixed-method study aimed at understanding more about the impact the pandemic has had on adult safeguarding through the eyes of those professionals working in that field.

Governing Global Antimicrobial Resistance: 6 Key Lessons Fromthe Paris Climate Agreement

[...]mitigating the threat posed by AMR requires a recognition of how embedded social structures and incentives drive antimicrobial use across sectors. [...]escalating commitments through national AMR action plans, which outline each country's AMR goals and planned actions, will likely increase the effectiveness of global AMR efforts. Fifth, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guiding the Paris Agreement, ongoing AMR action would be best informed by a regular and independent stock-taking to evaluate existing measures and advise on evidence-informed adjustments.11,12 This endeavor must (1) recognize that different ways of knowing constitute the global knowledge base, (2) ensure that using evidence to inform adjustments that work does not detract from the inherently political questions of works for what purpose and for whose benefit, and (3) come with a commitment to equitable evidence generation and prioritization. Striking a panel to assess the global knowledge base on these terms will ensure that global, regional, and national goals and policies are continually informed by the best available evidence and are in line with leading practices.12 Finally, an enduring international legal agreement could institutionalize requires new legal mechanisms beyond those available through the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Organization for Animal Health, and the United Nations Environment Program, which are limited to the area-specific mandates of each institution.

Sovereignty, sanctions, and data sharing under international law.

Pathogen samples and scientific data are bargaining chips in a global argument about who gets what in a pandemic.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF VACCINES USING THE ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING TRANSACTION

Access and benefit sharing (ABS) is a transactional mechanism designed to allow countries to trade access to their sovereign genetic resources for monetary and non-monetary benefits, with the ultimate goal of channelling those benefits into sustainable development and environmental conservation. Arguments about how pathogens are not the sort of genetic resources the world ought to conserve eventually gave way to a recognition that pathogens are indeed sovereign genetic resources under the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol, and that the ABS transaction may be an effective way to deliver scarce vaccines to developing nations as benefits received in exchange for shared pathogen samples. This article argues that categorising vaccines as benefits given in exchange for access to pathogen samples creates opposing incentives for providers and users of virus samples and undermines the human right to health because it makes that right a commodity to be bought. The provision of pathogen samples to the global research commons and the fair and equitable distribution of medicines should be two parallel public goods to be pursued as goals in and of themselves. We conclude that the linking of these goals through the ABS transaction should be reassessed.

International Collaboration to Ensure Equitable Access to Vaccines for COVID-19: The ACT-Accelerator and the COVAX Facility.

Policy Points Equitable access to a COVID-19 vaccine in all countries remains a key policy objective, but experience of previous pandemics suggests access will be limited in developing countries, despite the rapid development of three successful vaccine candidates. The COVAX Facility seeks to address this important issue, but the prevalence of vaccine nationalism threatens to limit the ability of the facility to meet both its funding targets and its ambitious goals for vaccine procurement. A failure to adequately address the underlying lack of infrastructure in developing countries threatens to further limit the success of the COVAX Facility. CONTEXT: Significant effort has been directed toward developing a COVID-19 vaccine, which is viewed as the route out of the pandemic. Much of this effort has coalesced around COVAX, the multilateral initiative aimed at accelerating the development of COVID-19 vaccines, and ensuring they are equitably available in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This paper represents the first significant analysis of COVAX, and the extent to which it can be said to have successfully met these aims. METHODS: This paper draws on the publicly available policy documents made available by the COVAX initiatives, as well as position papers and public statements from governments around the world with respect to COVID-19 vaccines and equitable access. We analyze the academic literature regarding access to vaccines during the H1N1 pandemic. Finally, we consider the WHO Global Allocation System, and its principles, which are intended to guide COVAX vaccine deployment. FINDINGS: We argue that the funding mechanism deployed by the COVAX Pillar appears to be effective at fostering at-risk investments in research and development and the production of doses in advance of confirmation of clinical efficacy, but caution that this represents a win-win situation for vaccine manufacturers, providing them with opportunity to benefit regardless of whether their vaccine candidate ever goes on to gain regulatory approval. We also argue that the success of the COVAX Facility with respect to equitable access to vaccine is likely to be limited, primarily as a result of the prevalence of vaccine nationalism, whereby countries adopt policies which heavily prioritize their own public health needs at the expense of others. CONCLUSIONS: Current efforts through COVAX have greatly accelerated the development of vaccines against COVID-19, but these benefits are unlikely to flow to LMICs, largely due to the threat of vaccine nationalism.