{"id":15150,"date":"2025-04-07T11:14:54","date_gmt":"2025-04-07T09:14:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/saludporderecho.org\/?p=15150"},"modified":"2025-04-07T12:19:06","modified_gmt":"2025-04-07T10:19:06","slug":"europe-must-prioritize-peoples-interests-over-industry-in-the-face-of-the-next-pandemic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/saludporderecho.org\/en\/europe-must-prioritize-peoples-interests-over-industry-in-the-face-of-the-next-pandemic\/","title":{"rendered":"Europe must prioritize people\u2019s interests over industry in the face of the next pandemic"},"content":{"rendered":"

Less than two months before the negotiations on the Pandemic Treaty conclude at the World Health Organization, some proposals remain the subject of intense debate and negotiation \u2014 particularly those related to technology transfer (Article 11)<\/a> and the access and benefit-sharing system (PABS, Article 12).<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The European Union has opposed some of these proposals, advocating for voluntary measures for industry to share technology and knowledge during emergencies, and rejecting measures that include binding commitments to rapidly access knowledge and expand access to technology for manufacturing pharmaceutical products in emergencies.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this analysis, we explain how this stance is inconsistent with other positions and commitments previously taken by the EU \u2014 where it has supported binding measures \u2014 and how it also fails to reflect the level of public resources invested and the role played by EU Member States in pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) for pandemics. We argue that the EU could actually benefit from a mechanism that includes binding measures for technology transfer and the equitable distribution of pharmaceutical products in future pandemics.<\/span><\/p>\n

Europe already supports similar non-voluntary principles in other forums<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

The question of whether measures to promote technology transfer during a pandemic should be voluntary or binding has been a point of tension in the negotiations. Relying exclusively on voluntary measures has proven ineffective in responding to COVID-19, as illustrated by the lack of contributions to mechanisms such as C-TAP. The rapid expansion of manufacturing capacity through technology and knowledge transfer during an emergency is necessary to protect global health and requires a combination of binding and voluntary measures, as outlined in a report by the Global Health Centre.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The absence of agile mechanisms to scale up vaccine manufacturing capacity results in loss of life and unnecessarily increased healthcare costs<\/a>. Some binding measures to protect public health \u2014 such as compulsory licenses \u2014 are recognized under international law, including the TRIPS Agreement, and have been used by countries across all income levels to facilitate access to medicines (see map below), including EU Member States. For example, Germany and Hungary made legislative changes<\/a> to speed up the process for issuing compulsory licenses during COVID-19.<\/span><\/p>\n

The EU is well aware of the need for binding measures in emergency situations. In fact, while in Geneva the EU denies the need for binding measures to accelerate technology and knowledge transfer during emergencies, in Brussels it is negotiating precisely the opposite: the obligation to share trade secrets<\/a> for the effective implementation of compulsory licenses within the EU.<\/span><\/p>\n