Breakthroughs Blog: United Nations

With thousands of delegates dashing from one meeting to another in the frenetic New York streets, it was clear that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was back in full swing this year. Given the three High-Level Meetings (HLMs) on global health, including pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response (PPPR); universal health coverage (UHC); and tuberculosis (TB), this was already set to be a major opportunity to reset coming out of the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet despite high ambitions, this year’s forum fell short of expectations, with many key issues, such as new agreements for sharing medical countermeasures (MCMs), accountability and enforcement mechanisms, or new funding commitments, being either punted to other forums or ignored. Innovation did feature strongly in all three HLMs, and despite the general disappointment, the research community was able to notch a few wins.A milestone in global pandemic preparednessThe UNGA HLM on PPPR marked a historic moment with the adoption of a political declaration. While nonbinding, this declaration carries significant symbolic weight, underscoring the global recognition that pandemic threats transcend mere health emergencies; they are existential threats that must be addressed with a whole-of-society approach. However, it was clear in the lead-up that the ambition had been severely curtailed and much of the text of the political declaration watered down. The meeting saw minimal participation from heads of state and inadequate representation from civil society. Many countries chose to focus on their past accomplishments in PPPR without articulating clear next steps or new commitments.Funding (or lack thereof) was another key theme of the week. The declaration emphasizes the importance of supporting sustainable and alternative financing mechanisms, as well as strengthening the capacity for innovation and production of MCMs. Specifically, it highlights the need to assist low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by bolstering local production, technology transfer, and voluntary licensing. Support for the Pandemic Fund is noted, acknowledging the need for $10 billion to make the mechanism successful. Despite these encouraging commitments, the adopted declaration does not include specific new financial pledges for the Pandemic Fund nor targets that ensure the realization of the 100 Days Mission Plus, an initiative that would seek to develop and distribute MCMs within 100 days of an outbreak. Some were also hoping to see the declaration lay out some key principles or targets for a potential MCMs platform to succeed the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator, which coordinated and oversaw the rollout of COVID-19 technologies to low-income countries. But while leaders emphasized the importance of achieving equitable access to essential tools in their statements, disappointingly, there was no mention of a platform in the final declaration text, and the idea was hardly mentioned by member states during debate. Instead, it was clear from the statements leaders made at the meeting that they are eyeing the ongoing processes in Geneva on a pandemic accord and reforms to the International Health Regulations (IHR) to resolve many of these issues—further increasing the stakes for the outcomes of these processes, which need to be aligned with each other and with the declaration.Lack of progress on UHC implementationThe UHC meeting began with the adoption of a nonbinding political declaration by member states. During the meeting, issues of equity and access took center stage. Various countries emphasized the importance of ensuring that health care and health products are accessible to all, regardless of income, and advocated for gender-inclusive health interventions.The role of R&D in achieving UHC emerged as another central theme. Many countries highlighted the need for local and regional production of vaccines, diagnostics, medicines, and other health technologies. Several member states stressed the importance of technology transfer to LMICs and the removal of barriers posed by intellectual property rights. Collaboration and innovation were identified as key drivers of improved global health outcomes. In alignment with the sentiments coming out of the previous day’s PPPR HLM, this reflects a growing recognition of the importance of regional and domestic capacity for health care production and innovation.The spotlight on R&D in the broader UHC context is an exciting step in the right direction, but like the PPPR HLM, the UHC discussions lacked targeted commitments. Member states focused on identifying gaps and areas of needed improvement, such as localized manufacturing of health technologies and increased investments, but largely failed to pledge new financing and other concrete commitments to fill these gaps.  TB commitments finally include tangible targetsThe week culminated with the TB HLM adopting a political declaration, setting forth targets and commitments for tackling TB. In the document, governments pledged to mobilize at least $22 billion annually by 2027, with a more substantial commitment of $35 billion annually by 2030 for TB prevention and treatment. Additionally, there was a commitment to mobilize an additional $5 billion a year by 2027 for TB research and innovation. These commitments are ambitious, especially given that governments have delivered less than half of the $13 billion they had committed to raise by 2022 during the 2018 HLM. Similarly, only half of the $2 billion pledged annually for TB R&D has materialized.While many in the TB community celebrated the adoption of the declaration, it is important to note that the document does not go as far as some advocates would have liked, particularly on equity and inclusiveness provisions, and others have expressed disappointment about the lack of engagement from heads of state. That said, the ambitious funding targets set forth in the declaration hold the potential to make a significant impact if they are met with concrete actions, accountability, and global leadership. Now, the challenge lies in holding governments accountable for their commitments by putting in place robust monitoring mechanisms to track progress.So where do we go from here? With all three political declarations adopted at the HLMs, the General Assembly must formally ratify them in the coming week, and there could still be fights ahead, as several member states lodged objections ahead of the summit. The UNGA HLMs shed light on the global community's priorities on PPPR, UHC, and TB but also gave insight on the lack of concrete commitments from member states. Heads of state were disappointingly underrepresented in all three. Statements from ministers were verbose on gaps and needs but short on commitments and implementation.Zooming out to the broader ecosystem, it is reassuring to see alignment between multilateral bodies, such as the G7’s promise to foster innovative technologies for TB and other diseases, acknowledging the need for advancements in this critical area. In fact, one of the major concrete announcements of the week was the government of Japan launching its Impact Investment Initiative for Global Health (Triple I for GH), a new G7 initiative that seeks to align private and nonprofit stakeholders around best practices for impact investment in global health. Finally, the G20 also reaffirmed its commitment to combat TB and other diseases and to support the interim MCMs platform under development by WHO.While the HLMs were significant milestones, the true test lies in the implementation of commitments. With the political declarations being nonbinding, it is now up to other multilateral bodies to pick up the baton and ensure targets are established, commitments are made, and leaders deliver on implementation. Looking ahead, the deliberations around the pandemic accord will next take center stage through the intergovernmental negotiating body on the pandemic accord, with the process set to conclude by next year. Several member states hope this will serve as a vehicle to advance discussions on the development and access to MCMs. Similarly, IHR reforms offer a chance to advance key elements of the PPPR agenda, such as data sharing and other core capacities.  The G7 and G20 will also need to play a bigger role in financing all these ambitions.The HLMs ultimately served as a good reset moment to reemphasize the importance of these global health priorities, but it is now up to other forums and national governments to work collaboratively to translate pledges into action.

As is tradition, the World Health Organization (WHO) Executive Board (EB) kicked off what promises to be another packed multilateral calendar. While much has remained the same, this year’s forum also ushered in noteworthy shifts in deliberations, dynamics, and dialogue that advocates should be aware of. Here are GHTC’s top takeaways from the week: 1. EB shrinks space for civil society engagement. As civil society delegates entered the halls of WHO for the EB for the first time since 2020, they were confronted with a harsh reality: The ability for non-state actors to meaningfully participate in these meetings is at an all-time low. New protocols had been introduced limiting delegation size and physical and structural changes put in place that left civil society literally on the outside looking in. Gone are the days when civil society could be physically present in the assembly room to follow the proceedings. Instead, advocates were relegated to a small, hot, and stuffy overflow room, more akin to a small press room, located far away from the official proceedings, hampering their ability to connect with officials and country delegates, which is often the most valuable part of the week. As EB participation and the number of agenda items have ballooned, WHO has also imposed new constraints on civil society statements, which have hit non-state actors particularly hard. WHO has tried to force civil society organizations to come together and develop single constituency statements for certain agenda items, a challenge that often further dilutes specific technical feedback from a diverse set of voices as various WHO-accredited institutions try to reconcile diverging views into a single, cohesive communication. Individual interventions are now reduced to just one minute, and they must be uploaded to a WHO database prior to the start of that agenda item. Apart from the challenge of distilling feedback and technical input down to around 100 words, the requirement to upload in advance prohibits advocates from rebutting issues that arise during debate or meaningfully influencing the decision making in real time. Other United Nations (UN) agencies, such as the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization have far more robust and meaningful civil society engagement processes that could serve as better models for WHO to emulate. 2. Debate on WHO’s work in health emergencies goes into the next round. Global politics tend to spill over into the parliamentary debates at EB, and this year was no different with the war in Ukraine creating serious tension between western allies and Russia. Much of the debate surrounding WHO’s role in health emergencies was derailed by several testy back-and-forths between delegations, leading to disruptions and little progress on key agenda items. A new ten-point proposal from WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to improve preparedness and response to health emergencies also received mixed reviews from WHO member states, with many warning the WHO secretariat not to move ahead of member states and the already ongoing processes to amend the International Health Regulations and negotiate a pandemic accord.  The latter did make waves at this EB, as the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) published a “zero-draft,” that included a few surprises. The draft features some strong, equity-focused language, as well as calls for building and strengthening country regulatory, manufacturing, and innovative research and development (R&D) capacities for pandemic-related products. Surprisingly, it also features numerous callouts and provisions focused on intellectual property, including incentivizing relevant transfers of technology and know-how, forcing manufacturers that receive public funding to disclose prices for pandemic-related products, and time-bound waivers on medical countermeasures that can accelerate or scale up manufacturing, signaling the key battlegrounds for upcoming negotiations.  The biggest stunner, though, is a brand-new section focused on creating a new WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (the “PABS System”) that would collect and equitably distribute a portion of all globally produced vaccines and other medical products during pandemics. According to the draft, 10 percent of total global production of pandemic products would be allocated to WHO, with half donated and half bought at an “accessible” price. Now, deliberations on the specific provisions will begin in earnest ahead of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May, with the INB hosting two meetings in the next few months to debate individual chapters of the draft.  3. Implementation of the clinical trials resolution enters its next phase as member states argue about scope. Member states also debated the implementation of last year’s clinical trials resolution during the session on global health emergencies. Delegates noted the progress WHO had made over the past year in leading consultations and mapping the current clinical trial networks landscape. A few countries underscored the importance of inclusiveness and equity and called for greater technical support from WHO. On the contrary, in response to a WHO proposal to develop a complementary self-assessment tool to measure the maturity of the clinical trial ecosystem at national and international levels, the United States and United Kingdom instead urged the WHO secretariat to keep its focus limited to the scope of the actual resolution until more progress is achieved. The WHO is now set to move forward with a process to develop draft guidelines for clinical trials, with the help of experts and member states, that is expected to be in place by WHA. 4. Universal health coverage (UHC) reemerges as a priority from COVID-19 slumber. In 2019, UHC was the “it” topic of global health. It featured prominently on the agenda of WHO meetings and the UN held a high-level meeting on the subject to advance a new framework to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Then came the pandemic, and focus and attention on the topic slipped. This year, UHC is back on the map, having featured heavily at this year's EB.  During the broader discussion on UHC, WHO member states highlighted the importance of primary health care and health system strengthening, as well as considered and ultimately passed a resolution on strengthening diagnostics capacity. The resolution urges member states to address a range of diagnostic issues, including increasing local production, streamlining regulatory approaches, and addressing access barriers. It also calls for greater investment in diagnostic R&D and more systemic funding of capacity-building infrastructure for diagnostics, as well as urges WHO to enact specific technical changes to facilitate and catalyze diagnostic development.  The next couple of months will continue to deliver multilateral developments at a breakneck pace, and given the interlinkages between the many multilateral processes underway, it will be vital for advocates to understand the full landscape of possible changes to the global health architecture. While the dynamics may be shifting, it is encouraging to see that the research agenda is present throughout these different dialogues, both in Geneva and beyond. 

The annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is always a key moment on the diplomatic calendar. For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic began, UNGA was held in person. This provided opportunities to renew relationships, forge new partnerships, and debate in-depth in ways that are difficult in the Zoom world. And while many want to say that the pandemic is behind us, as President Joe Biden pronounced on his recent 60 Minutes appearance, COVID-19 and the possibility of future health threats still loomed large during the first half of UNGA discussions.Concurrently, leaders gathered for the replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and to contend with the erosion of progress in other global health areas as a result of resources being diverted to COVID-19. Chief among the backslides are three of the world’s leading infectious killers: HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, which all suffered setbacks during the pandemic with a reduction in access to testing and treatment coupled with a troubling rise in cases. If that were not enough, the rising threat of antimicrobial resistance was also top of mind for many leaders.Below are some of the key highlights from the first half of UNGA.Major focus on pandemic preparedness and global health architectureWhile some major speeches at UNGA, such as those by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz or US President Joe Biden, barely acknowledged the pandemic, plenty of events and meetings throughout the the first half of UNGA highlighted a sustained and strong focus on current and future health crises.Underscoring the need for a robust discussion on reforms to global political structures and recommendations put forth over the last two years by the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response and the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, the UNGA overwhelmingly adopted a resolution to hold a high-level meeting at the heads-of-state- and government-level on pandemic preparedness and response no later than the 78th session of UNGA in September 2023. The agreement—co-sponsored by more than 100 countries—instructs the next General Assembly's president to organize the meeting in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) and to “adopt a succinct political declaration aimed at, inter alia, mobilizing political will at the national, regional and international levels for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”Discussions were also centered on the future of the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator. Civil society and other global health stakeholders questioned whether Accelerator is winding down, but stakeholders like WHO Special Envoy Dr. Ayoade Alakija assured the community that the framework is simply moving into a new phase. Questions remain on what the initiative will look like post-COVID-19, yet it is clear that there is a desire to retain some of the coordination functions of the framework, even as advocates continue to highlight the stark inequities and the sometimes-mismatched priorities that the framework created, highlighted by the lack of focus and resources for testing in LMICs.Bolstering local manufacturing capacity The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare what stakeholders across the Global South have long known: severe shortages in lifesaving medical products result when low-income countries are left to rely on the Global North and Asia as primary suppliers. The lack of local manufacturing capacity has been a driver of extreme global disparities in access to lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, drugs, and devices. More than two years into the pandemic, it has become increasingly clear that strengthening health security in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) will require long-term investments to fortify local capacity.This realization was echoed throughout discussions. Multiple stakeholders and events focused on the need to bolster manufacturing capacity in LMICs. PATH, in partnership with Foreign Policy, explored the investments, partnerships, and models that can inform a strategy for fostering a sustainable African manufacturing industry and distribution networks across the continent, addressing chronic inequities, and strengthening regional health security. At the Clinton Global Initiative, PATH committed to partnering with the African Union to develop principles for drug, vaccine, and diagnostic manufacturing on the African continent. We also witnessed firsthand commitments being made to strengthen this capacity, including by the Distributed Vaccine Manufacturing Collaborative. The Collaborative is co-chaired by Dr. Richard Hatchett from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Dr. Victor Dzau from the US National Academy of Medicine in partnership with the World Trade Organization; Gavi; WHO; the Wellcome Trust; Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention; the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, or Fiocruz; and various governments and industry partners. The goal of the Collaborative is to increase vaccine access in LMICs through the establishment of a versatile global vaccine manufacturing network capable of producing vaccines during pandemic and non-pandemic times. Sustainable financing for pandemic preparedness Another focal point of the first half of UNGA was the need for incremental and sustained financing. While the elephant in the room was clearly the Global Fund replenishment, which raised a record-breaking US$14.25 billion, despite falling short of the ultimate target of $18 billion, broader conversations on financing for pandemic preparedness also attracted plenty of attention. COVID-19 has highlighted that the world has consistently underinvested in preparedness and specifically in the frontline health workforce, resilient supply chains, and research and development for new countermeasures including novel vaccines, therapeutics, and other platforms and technologies that can be deployed during a pandemic.Many dialogues prioritized equity, and the idea that regardless of location or income level, all people must be able to access the science, tools, and resources they need to both better prepare for and respond to health crises. Cross-sector leaders, including the World Trade Organization Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, came together for a frank conversation about pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response financing needs, and how we can sustainably mobilize resources for the full range of needs.Much of the attention and debate zeroed in on the newly created financial intermediary fund. This fund is meant to provide a dedicated stream of additional, long-term financing to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response capabilities and address critical gaps in LMICs through investments and technical support at the national, regional, and global levels. Yet at UNGA, with the backdrop of the recent disparities in the COVID-19 response still fresh, conversations swirled around how the Fund would ensure a broad set of voices were represented, its ability to achieve its full scope given limited catalytic funding, and how it connects to the broader health security architecture.  This year’s formal UNGA agenda did not feature health as prominently as in the past, perhaps a signal that the outsized attention our community has received due to COVID-19 is waning, as concerns about climate change, a global food crisis, and ongoing global conflicts rise on the list of the world’s most pressing challenges. In the coming months, advocates must pivot to ensure that pandemic needs are not forgotten, and that we start to build the fit-for-purpose architecture of the future, while also recommitting to non-COVID-19 health priorities and addressing the backslides we have seen since the onset of the pandemic.

President Joe Biden has made clear that addressing climate change is a top priority for his administration. Since January, the president has issued executive actions in pursuit of tackling the climate crisis; opened a new federal office for climate change, health, and equity; and convened two meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, one of which was part of a larger leaders summit intended to rally world leaders to strengthen climate ambition in the lead-up to the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in early November, during which countries hope to negotiate shared climate commitments.Amid these ongoing and vital conversations, GHTC is taking stock of how global health and climate are intertwined and how innovation can address these twin issues and mitigate the impact of climate change on human health. As the Unites States prepares to engage in COP26, we hope to see continued commitments and concrete actions to combat the climate crisis, including climate-related global health challenges.Climate-related global health risksClimate and global health are inextricably linked: Climate change could put billions more people worldwide at risk of vector-borne and zoonotic diseases like malaria and dengue. Changing temperatures have been described as a “threat multiplier” of antimicrobial resistance, due to warm conditions being more favorable for bacterial reproduction. The climate crisis exacerbates food instability and malnutrition as a result of droughts and other extreme weather events—circumstances which also prove opportune for disease outbreaks. The threat of a “Disease X” outbreak occurring, and spreading globally, is greater than ever before due to deforestation and other climate-related risk factors.These risks will not be felt equally around the world. Children are among the most vulnerable—and will be exposed for the longest—to health risks resulting from climate change, given their physical and cognitive immaturity. Health effects are also expected to be worse for people who are older, have preexisting medical conditions, or are living in poverty or in low- and middle-income countries. These populations are less able to insulate themselves through technology, housing, social networks, health services, and other infrastructure. Food insecurity is likely to particularly affect Indigenous communities, many of which rely on local food sources, such as fish. Women and girls, too, are often underprioritized in responses to climate-induced disasters, which can inhibit their agency and access to sexual and reproductive health services, from contraception to HIV prevention and treatment.Existing efforts by US agenciesThe US government is beginning to recognize and take on the interconnected fight against climate change and global health crises through programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and US Agency for International Development (USAID).For example, CDC’s Climate and Health Program assists states, cities, territories, and tribes in the United States with protecting human health from a changing climate by providing data, tools, and technical guidance to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience.NIH has launched a Working Group on Climate Change and Health aimed at addressing climate change and its health effects through research and innovation, and its National Institute of Environmental Health Services Climate Change and Human Health Program funds research aimed at understanding the health effects of climate change.USAID conducts a breadth of climate-related work, playing a crucial role in mitigating climate change and supporting resilience against its global impact—including by strengthening resilient food systems. USAID-supported programs have worked to develop and distribute disease-, heat-, and drought-tolerant seeds as well as nutrient-dense foods. For example, to support response to climate change–induced droughts and dry climates, USAID has invested in a public-private partnership to develop a variety of drought-tolerant maize, which was used by 6 million farmers in 2016 when the El Niño drought hit Southern and Eastern Africa.Looking ahead: What more should the US government do?In line with its expressed priorities, the US administration should continue to sustain and expand investment in climate change innovation—embracing a comprehensive agenda that recognizes the need to not only directly improve climate health, but also mitigate its impact on human health. While US health agencies have demonstrated some capacity to take on climate action for health, there is much more to be done.US agencies addressing climate change should consistently consider its ripple effect on global health and integrate a broad range of health-related climate innovation into their work—for instance, through emerging infectious disease surveillance, health and environmental systems capacity strengthening, or research to further understand both threats and the ways they interact.We will never achieve global health goals without also protecting our environment, and we won’t succeed in preventing the climate crisis’s worst impacts without bolstering investments in global health. GHTC looks forward to seeing continued commitment and global leadership from the US government to advance innovation to address these deeply intertwined challenges.