MANILA – Countries that participated in Tuesday’s special consultation of the Executive Board of the World Health Organization expressed the paintings of the committees established to review and provide recommendations on the overall reaction to COVID-19, but some said that evaluations will have to make certain other perspectives, adding those of small island states.
Co-chaired by former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, the Independent Pandemic Preparedness and Response Group was formed in July to independently assess the global reaction to coronaviruses.
On Tuesday, the organization informed its Member States of what it has achieved so far, on the variety of members of the organization, the progression of its mandate and the implementation strategies planned through the organization to review the response, which included literature reviews, qualified audiences or discussions on express topics, in-depth interviews and online surveys.
WHO’s independent framework recommends review to be informed of pandemic classes
The WHO Advisory and Oversight Committee for Health Emergencies suggests an independent role of WHO in reacting to COVID-19.
The organization will also work with other review mechanisms, such as the International Health Regulations Review Committee and the Independent Monitoring and Advisory Committee, which conducts an annual review of WHO’s fitness emergency programme. preparation and response to a pandemic.
“These recommendations may set the course as the pandemic continues, while contributing to greater preparation for the next prospective pandemic,” Clark said.
Clark invited Member States to share their reports on the pandemic and provide advice for the work of the group.
Most Member States expressed support for the organization and other review committees, while emphasizing their desire to maintain their independence and impartiality. Germany encouraged committees to be ambitious and not hesitate to challenge Member States in their recommendations.
“The EU requires situations. In your assessments, don’t be afraid to tell uncomfortable truths. In your recommendations, don’t be afraid to challenge . . . US Member States are not the only ones in the world to do so. US, questioning existing operational tactics and showing boldness and vision,” said the German representative, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union.
Some Member States made serious mistakes at the beginning of the pandemic, when the world had limited knowledge of the disease, the representative of Austria said. There is no desire to point the finger, he added, but under pressure the importance of examining whether measures such as closures and restrictions on the movement of other people and goods “are proportional to the progression of the epidemic. “
The many ongoing evidence provides a greater understanding of how governments and WHO can better respond to the next global crisis, the representative added.
“These recommendations can follow the right course as the pandemic continues, while contributing to greater preparation for the next prospective pandemic. “
Some expressed fears about the composition of IPPR and the threat that customers and reports from low- and middle-income countries, as well as small island states, would not be taken into account, adding up to those in the Pacific.
Russia, for example, under pressure that “an entire geographical region” is not represented. He did not identify the region at the session, but it was published on the online page of Russia’s permanent project to the United Nations in Geneva through Alexandra Dronova, Deputy Minister of Health of the Russian Federation, mentions the absence of representatives from Central Asia and Eastern Europe on the panel.
“If the fact that this region represents a very giant proportion of the world population, it is a serious imbalance,” said the representative.
The UK that the group consults with a clinical advisory organization to ensure that its findings and recommendations are “based on the most recent and productive clinical evidence”. Others reminded the organization to consult with Member States, as defined in the World Health Assembly solution that calls for its creation.
The United States requested an initial briefing on IPPR activity before the resumption of the 73rd consultation of the World Health Assembly from 9 to 14 November, and a preliminary briefing before the WHO Executive Board meeting in January 2021.
The IpPR is scheduled to meet from 20 to 21 October.
Co-Chair Johnson-Sirleaf said the panel shared Member States’ call for a “practical, robust, contextualized” report.
Several Member States have proposed that there be an interim outbreak alert point, that an alert mechanism for singles in the form of a public aptitude emergency of foreign interest, within the framework of the IHR, and a debate on how to create members. The duty of states to prepare for fitness emergencies.
Ebola in Tanzania? A on global governance of infectious diseases
When it was unclear whether Ebola was circulating in Tanzania, the scenario raised questions about the only global governance design in position for pandemics.
The IHR bureaucracy is a binding treaty around the world that defines the obligations of WHO and Member States in the event of a public fitness emergency, and has won calls to review and review the pandemic.
Thailand has also proposed the creation of a dispute resolution tool for multilateral disputes, article 56 of the IHR.
Article 56 stipulates that disputes between States Parties relating to the interpretation or application of the IHR, for example, a country that does not report an infrequent or unexplained fit, may be resolved by negotiations or other non-violent means.
If this does not resolve the problem, a state will possibly seek the assistance of the Director-General of WHO for arbitration or seek dispute resolution mechanisms from other intergovernmental organizations.