 Hello and welcome to People's Dispatch. It has been two years since the countries and the governments of the world are discussing Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Organization. The idea is to come up with a negotiated draft or a text which can guide international response in event of a future pandemic. It also talks about prevention because it is talking about monitoring of pathogens, some of them dangerous pathogens and strengthening of health systems because that would ensure that the epidemics do not spread in case we are able to respond timely and effectively. However, while these seem to be stated intentions at least, when we look at the details, the way the negotiations are going at the level of international negotiating body, which is the place where the governments come and talk and discuss before coming up with the final text, when we look at those negotiations and what is happening, one cannot feel very confident that things are running in a manner which can really help people avoid the kind of devastation that we saw of life and death during the COVID-19 pandemic. But there are also countries and activists and civil society organizations who are at it to put a better language in the text so that things can be more pro-people and where access, affordability, and availability of medicines and other medical tools can be available for people when they need. Now, also important is to discuss a little about the World Trade Organization and what is happening at that level. We all know that India and South Africa had proposed something called a TRIPS waiver at the WTO basically asking that all kinds of intellectual property barriers should be lifted during the COVID-19 pandemic because that was becoming a barrier for developing countries, especially the least developed countries in accessing technology to manufacture and distribute some of the products which could save lives. Subsequently, 65, 65 developing countries came on board and sponsored that resolution. However, it was passed, some of the clauses were passed in a very half-hearted manner, very late, and now it seems that the news is coming that finally the WTO will not be able to give TRIPS waiver to medicines and other technologies. So, when we look at this entire scenario, it is important to see that it is only at the level of WTO now that we have the pandemic accord which can give some hope of equality and justice when it comes to pandemics. So, these are the things, this is the theme around which we will have our interview today and we are joined by another then K.M. Gopakumar who's a legal advisor with the Third World Network and organization which has been following these processes at the level of WTO as well as WHO very closely and being a strong voice of pro-people policies and language that should come in the text. So, welcome Gopakumar and we have had you before and it is always a pleasure to have you. So, maybe firstly we can talk about the international negotiating bodies 8th round which is going to start on 19th Feb and it is going to go on till 1st March which is quite a long time to discuss a negotiating text which means that there is an intent to try to close this within two years which is this year before the World Health Assembly in May. But what kind of information do we have from the 7th round which happened in December and do you think that issues such as access to medicines or access and benefit sharing system all of these where do we stand in the terms of talking about those issues. Thank you Jyotsana for this interaction. As we have seen in the last round that's the 7th round which was like two phases it happened in November as well as in December. What we observed is that there was a whole clamor for equity in 2020 and 2021 and which in a way gave fuel to this idea of a pandemic treaty. But as we progress I think the push for equity or this team is losing out and developed countries are showing their real colors. What exactly they want as of now is that a concrete legal obligations for enhancing surveillance network and sharing of information but at the same time they are not ready to provide a legal guarantee or not ready to undertake legal obligations to bring equity in the international health regime international health emergency regime especially in the context of pandemic. So what we mean by equity is that to take a concrete obligations to provide equitable access to the equitable access to health products in every countries by and large through the diversification of manufacturing base. So all the regions all the countries who do not have the manufacturing capabilities can produce these medicines and other required health products can access these products and which can enhance their ability to respond well. So far they can what you call contain this spread of the pandemic but developing developed countries are saying that they are not in a position to provide any kind of legal guarantee. So that is what we have observed and though there is an ambition or there is a push to conclude the whole negotiation by May it is a fact that we do not have a draft formally designated negotiating text we are still working on a draft negotiating text and the 7th INB decided that they will create around five subgroups to discuss various issues and the subgroups will then will provide a textual language to the bureau and then from there bureau will develop a new text. So this kind of attempt we have seen it and which has failed which has in a way delight the whole negotiation till date because it prevents the right of member states to provide language or provide textual proposal to the existing text. So if such a proposal such a textual proposal comes of course it may enhance the volume of the text but everybody's views are recorded in the negotiating text and that will set the stage for starting a negotiation so a text-based negotiation. So till date there was no text-based negotiation the discussions were by and on happened on concepts and ideas and now the time is running out there will be a clamour from developed countries and their associate to have a treaty by May so there is no point in having a treaty without a content so rather it will bear the danger of reinforcing the status quo as we talk about decolonizing global health this will be a vote to that kind of efforts and it will rather reinforce the colonial idea of global health once again so that's the danger we are facing right now. Wow so that's important and in a sense you are saying it is better to not have a text than a heavily compromised text which will not really help people access medicines and other medical tools right? Yeah it's not the text I am saying that it is better not to have a not to have a pandemic in a legal instrument which does not change the status quo. Absolutely. Currently the text what is proposed is that developing countries has to undertake more obligations but there is no guarantee that to get any kind of assistance and as well as in return of providing all these information developed countries are not ready to part the benefit of that information that is in terms of sharing the health products required for the preparedness and response to the pandemic. Right so maybe one good example is the access and benefit sharing system of what you are saying it gets I think best exemplified through that so can you talk a little about that as well? So normally the dominant perception is that whenever developing countries are demanding for equitable access it is always viewed as a charity, the countries have the developed countries and their entrepreneurs have this ability to develop products and why they part with the products with developing countries or in other words developing countries are demanding too much they are eyeing for the scale by demanding equitable access but that is not the truth. The truth is that without accessing those information the development of such products will be delayed if not possible. So everybody contribute to the development of this you know R&D of these health products related to whether it's a pandemic or a public health emergency of international concern every country who faces that in fact outbreak shares a lot of information through WHO to other countries or when sometimes directly posting the data on websites etc. So this information is critical to develop and further many of these pathogens also various types of variants occurs so you need to have access to those information that helps you to develop a robust product. So this has been completely ignored the idea or what is going on right now is that winners takes all. We get this information we develop the products but we don't part with you so this is unacceptable it's the only way or if not the only way but the best way to do that to have a legal regime which ensures access to information along with the benefit sharing so what is happening right now went on the ABS provision so the latest proposal of the European Union very clever way or want to create an obligation on countries to share the information and provide access to the pathogens which emerges in their borders or located or isolated within their borders but when it comes to benefit sharing there is no such legal obligation. It is there saying that okay you sign the contract etc but access is not depending upon the the condition for you know access is not depending upon your sharing share the benefit so in other words access is unconditional it is highly a colonial approach to say that you provide access and we don't share you the benefit and when it comes to benefit sharing you have intellectual property rights and then we will have a we will have a other conditions attached to it that okay so that's not acceptable. So the European Union proposal clearly reflects that mindset. Thank you very very important yes and the fact that how colonization is still continues in this negotiations I think these are important linkages to be brought about. Talking about something similar the way the pressures work when the INP7 happened in December just before the second round was to take place Geneva Health Files broke a story very important one which said that which revealed that the negotiator from Namibia who was a very strong voice from the global south was asked to return to the country and not negotiate and that happened under extreme pressures by the US and EU so can you throw a little more light on it and do you think that these kind of pressures are common in these negotiations and developed countries do such things tactically or more commonly and it wasn't really an aberration or how do these negotiations the back door in the in the sense of the negotiations work. I would say that what we have seen or read in December is a kind of a curtain riser but as we close to the more and more towards the deadline for the negotiations so we will see more of such pressures so developing country typically a developing country negotiator faces two types of pressure of course one from the developing developed countries and another from the secretariat so secretariat views and their opinions always favors or most of the time favors the views of developed countries so you do not get an objective answer most in most of the time so a developing country negotiator faces two types of opponents one is the developed countries and another is the secretariat itself so it's a very very very what you call tough environment they are working secretariat is supposed to provide a neutral view and even and taking into consideration of large the public good but that's not the case and as we go along we will see these pressures are building up I think the there will be two types of pressures one is that countries will be approached capital will be approached bilaterally by us or you and second to say stop the second types of pressure is that they will provide more funding for some small projects or other projects and say now you are getting it why are you negotiating this provision so we are resolving it bilaterally so this kind of tactics are well known and we expect more that is exactly what happened even in last in 2022 when IHR was a proposal US proposal on IHR was taken up US approach all the capitals from important capitals of developing countries and as the support so this kind of pressures will be there yeah but the again the way to this standard pressure is that more vigilance by the public health groups as well as the civil society organizations right so one when we talk about intellectual property we talk about access and benefit sharing system there is one more category which is very important and that is talking about the health workers because in COVID-19 we saw while the health workers were the backbone of providing all the support be it the frontline health workers community health workers who went in among the people and provided support or be it the nurses or the ward persons and doctors in the hospitals but the kind of harassment they faced they had to deal with extremely long hours of work and still they were not paid on time forget about being paid some bonus for the work that they were doing so in that sense where does the text stand today and what can be the demand from the health workers and their organizations and unions it's a very important issue and the draft negotiating text has a dedicated article to deal with the health and care workforce article seven in the draft negotiating text which has around four paragraphs which basically take care of the issues what you have mentioned safe working environment and access to goods and services which is required to perform their duty in a better way and also there was a commitment to assist developing countries to build the healthcare workers and also an obligation to invest in establishing sustaining and coordinating and mobilizing skilled and trained workforce also to an obligation it proposes to create a network of training institution at national and regional level and also to send us of expertise to strengthen and sustain skilled and competent public health health and care workforce so these are these provisions are there but the most important question who is going to provide financial resources for to establish such institutions and also to developing assist developing countries so here there is an obligation is created in all parties to assist developing countries it should be very clear who has the major responsibility it's very clear those who are having the financial means and technological means have that that's the developed countries okay so here putting this developed countries are abdicate developed countries are abdicating their historical responsibility which they owe you know from a global public health perspective to developing countries they are abdicating it okay it should be very clear this article the responsibility should be with the developed countries as well as the WHO right now this brings me to my last question which is now that the negotiations are beginning and after the February negotiations again we have the ninth round before the World Health Assembly which is also a long round what do you think should the developing countries be doing at this moment looking at the text and do we have any expectations or what do we expect the developing countries to do I think developing countries needs to convey the message very clearly that we are not interested in a treaty for the sake of it we need a treaty which changes the status quo and addressing the concerns on equity effectively so that should be the bottom line and I am sure they are capable of doing it there are cross regional support for the issue of equity and even developed countries also know that they have to give something on equity but the the effort is to minimize that extract maximum and give minimum so and therefore the pressure will come in in terms of like oh early harvest let us negotiate equity provisions later not now and let us have the let us have the legal instrument by May we will resolve all the issues later because there is a US election is coming US election if Trump wins US may move out of WHO therefore we need to have a the legal instrument at the earliest so this kind of campaigns or you know arguments may put it up to convince developing countries to make a compromise but that may kind of compromise would be disastrous for developing countries because they would be ending up undertaking obligation which goes beyond their means and also not getting anything in return so so thank you Gopal the main takeaway is that we need a legal instrument which puts the language of equitable and just accessibility in very core form and if that is not happening we do not need this legal instrument we should continue to fight for a better one that is a takeaway thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insights with us