Breakthroughs Blog: SDGs

2024 will be a pivotal year for global health. With a record number of national elections, including one in the United States, many multiyear global health architecture reform processes are set to come to a close, and with several major replenishment and resource mobilization campaigns taking place, there is a palpable sense of “now or never” permeating global health discussions.  The World Health Organization (WHO) Executive Board (EB) meeting, which serves as the kickoff to the multilateral calendar, served as the first test on whether stakeholders could come together to ensure that progress continues. While the week offered welcome moments of political support for research and development (R&D), there is a sense that leaders have not yet met the moment to get the world back on track toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  Here are some key reflections from a busy week in Geneva:  Deadline looms over pandemic accord and International Health Regulations processes  As in previous years, the WHO’s role in global health emergencies was a central topic at the EB. Just weeks before the fourth anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, delegates received a new update from WHO on strengthening the global architecture for Health Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Resilience, which focused on the need for sustained political leadership and financing to drive the reform agenda forward. And while not on the official EB agenda, the work of amending the International Health Regulations (IHR) and finalizing a pandemic accord also loomed large. Little of the debate focused on specific proposals of these deliberations, though advancing access to medical countermeasures, vaccine equity, and regionally distributed manufacturing all got mentioned during these sessions. Instead, member states zeroed in on the process itself, with delegates seeking to inject a new sense of urgency to finalizing deliberations and adhering to the May deadline. Despite this, Poland became the first country to publicly question the feasibility of the current timeline, calling for a possible extension, signaling that there is also trepidation around how much progress can be achieved with limited negotiation days. The sessions on health emergencies also became the platform for geopolitical proxy battles, with the Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Palestine conflicts spilling over into the global health security debates. Several heated exchanges nearly derailed proceedings, and much airtime was spent addressing grievances.Tuberculosis, immunization, and neglected tropical disease reports highlight setbacksMultiple sessions during the week highlighted the continued disruption in healthcare caused by the pandemic. Despite reaching the midpoint in implementation of the SDGs, global progress remains off track in many key areas. This includes the fight against tuberculosis and neglected tropical diseases, which the WHO highlighted as requiring a renewed focus from member states.  The importance of investing in local production, strengthening laboratory capacity, and ensuring new tools are better adapted to the communities they are meant to serve were all key themes that came out of these sessions.Routine immunization levels are also still lagging behind pre-pandemic rates, with uneven progress regionally.  In its report to the EB, the WHO has documented that the current progress is not enough to meet targets set in the WHO’s Immunization Agenda for 2030. Low- and middle-income countries spoke of the cost of vaccinations as a major financial burden and challenge.  Yet there were notes of optimism too: 2024 is also expected to be a major year for immunization, with the rollout of two new malaria vaccines and two new polio vaccines, bringing the world closer to eradicating some of the planet’s deadliest diseases. Antimicrobial resistance shifts into bigger focus With the UN High Level Meeting on Antimicrobic Resistance (AMR) scheduled later this year and the WHO’s global action plan on AMR coming to an end in 2025, AMR was expected to be a prominent topic at this year’s meeting. While it made its way back on to the official agenda, it unfortunately did not receive as much attention as anticipated, with the agenda item being pushed late into the evening on Friday.  Member states ultimately advanced a resolution sponsored by Thailand which calls on member states to support R&D for new tools to combat AMR, to strengthen the capacities and standards of laboratories, and to participate in the WHO’s Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS), though several countries also wished to discuss the decision further ahead of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May where it will be up for formal adoption. In his remarks on the topic, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus echoed the calls for stronger surveillance; the development of new vaccines, diagnostics, and antimicrobials; and measures to make these interventions accessible and affordable. New resource mobilization push for WHO  EB members supported the proposal for an investor round to raise funds for WHO, which would likely be held in November, with uncharacteristic enthusiasm last week. The WHO Working Group on Sustainable Financing’s report to the 2023 WHA highlighted that WHO’s budget is “up to 86% dependent on generous donors” and that only “roughly 14% of WHO’s finances are truly predictable”. The future effectiveness of WHO will depend on changing how the agency is funded. Progress has been made to increase the percentage of assessed contributions received in the form of member state dues, but far more flexibility and predictability in voluntary contributions will be needed to meet this moment. The idea of a WHO investment round, similar to those hosted by the Global Fund and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance was accepted in principle by last year’s WHA. Dr. Tedros was charged by member states to provide a framework and justification at this year’s EB, and he delivered his investment case.  The investment framework is closely aligned with WHO’s 14th General Program of Work and the new strategic roadmap for the agency, but this WHO resource campaign will also have to compete with a number of replenishments set for this year, including for Gavi, as well as a resource push for the World Bank Pandemic Fund. This year feels like a make-or-break moment for the SDGs and the 2030 agenda. Yet the EB felt too much like business as usual, with ambition getting bogged down in a bloated agenda, geopolitical battles, and the minutia of internal processes. The urgency highlighted by several delegates on EB topics was not matched in the action or the commitments countries made in Geneva last week. While the EB did not jeopardize the potential of many processes moving forward, it did too little to contribute to the necessary forward momentum we will need to achieve the ambitious agenda set out by global leaders.  

The health ministers of G20 nations concluded their annual meeting last weekend with the adoption of an “outcome document” that includes welcome commitments to advance the research and development (R&D) of health products. While normally such a ministerial-level meeting would end with the release of a formal consensus communique, broader geopolitics derailed this process, with Russia and China opposing the inclusion of language condemning the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Below we break down what R&D commitments are included in the outcome document, why it matters, and where conversations are expected to go from here. What’s in the declaration? At the highest level, G20 nations made commitments to strengthen the global health architecture and “build more resilient, equitable, sustainable and inclusive health systems equipped to address ongoing global health challenges and future public health emergencies with equitable access to safe, effective, quality-assured and affordable vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and other medical countermeasures.” They also reaffirmed their commitment to ending the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; achieving polio eradication; advancing universal health coverage (UHC) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); and tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR). On the latter issue of AMR, the ministers vowed to strengthen R&D for AMR and further the development of novel antimicrobials. They welcomed the work of various international initiatives and GHTC members including the Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator (CARB-X) and the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and voiced continued support for the Global AMR R&D Hub, which was established under the German G20 presidency to promote AMR R&D coordination. On the broader issue of R&D for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR), G20 leaders agreed to support a World Health Organization (WHO)-led consultative process to develop an interim (and potentially later permanent) medical countermeasures (MCMs) mechanism to coordinate the end-to-end R&D, manufacturing, procurement, and equitable delivery of MCMs during health emergencies. They advised that such a mechanism should consider a “network of networks” approach, building off existing international and regional partnerships, and should be coherent with the outcomes of ongoing efforts to amend the International Health Regulations (IHR) and advance a binding pandemic instrument. Additionally, the ministers underscored the need to strengthen local and regional R&D networks and manufacturing capabilities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, as well as voiced support for what many call the “100 Days Mission” to develop and make available safe and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics within 100 days of the identification of a pandemic or epidemic threat. They also noted the importance of public-private R&D partnerships—calling out the contributions of GHTC members the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Medicines Patent Pool (MPP), and FIND—and technology transfer and knowledge sharing “on voluntary and mutually agreed terms.”Why it matters?  G20 nations currently conduct and fund the majority of the world’s health R&D. Thus, it is great to see G20 leaders reaffirm the importance of R&D to achieving UHC, SDGs, and PPPR and demonstrate political will to accelerate R&D efforts. However, the outcome document is short on specifics as to how G20 countries intend to operationalize their many promises, and it disappointingly includes no new funding targets or commitments.  Additionally, going into this year’s G20 cycle, many observers and health advocates also expected that the G20 under the Indian presidency would play a more active role in envisioning and detailing a specific proposal for the creation of an end-to-end MCMs mechanism or platform to succeed and build upon the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator. Instead, the G20 simply promised to support a WHO-led consultative process to design an interim mechanism and punted it to the International Negotiating Body (INB) process for a pandemic instrument to determine the prospects for a permanent MCMs platform. What’s next? With G20 nations offering few specifics on a vision to reimagine the global health architecture and advance an MCMs platform, the focal point for change is now squarely within the separate but interrelated processes now underway to amend the IHR, advance a pandemic accord that will create a more comprehensive framework for how countries will prevent and respond to outbreaks, and design an interim MCMs platform. While these processes have been ongoing, the deliberations have been stymied as countries struggle to reach consensus around thorny R&D topics like access and benefit sharing, with some pushing for more aggressive legally binding commitments for transparency, conditions on public R&D funding, patent waivers, and new supply chain mechanisms for ensuring low- and middle-income countries access to medical countermeasures. Questions remain on the full scope of some of the processes, and how they will delineate which issues will be tackled where and with the target date of May 2024 for the adoption of an instrument rapidly approaching and the INB and IHR processes largely behind schedule, it remains to be seen what tangible changes for R&D can be realized. While it is impossible to know what exactly what the future of these negotiations hold, GHTC promises to continue to watch, weigh in, and report back in the months ahead as these interrelated processes unfold. Stay tuned! 

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. 

A “who’s who” of politicians, philanthropists, CEOs, and civil society leaders descended upon New York City this week for the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)—a gathering renowned for its policymaking, pledging, and perennial traffic problems. GHTC was on the scene all week—attending side events, tuning into the official debates, and navigating police barriers—to be your eyes and ears on the ground. Here is what we heard and our top four takeaways on global health research and development (R&D): 1. We can’t end TB without new tools, so it’s vital for world leaders to marshal the political will and resources to close the TB R&D funding gap. Tuberculosis (TB) was a top topic at this year’s assembly with the convening of the first high-level meeting (HLM) on TB. Repeatedly, we heard—from advocates and policymakers, at side events and in in the official proceedings—how poor treatment options are a cornerstone of our failure to eradicate TB and of growing drug resistance, and that new vaccines and improved treatments and diagnostics will be key to turning the tide. While much attention focused on this lack of necessary tools, equal attention focused on the lack of political will and resources to end the epidemic. Many speakers lamented how shamefully slow progress has been since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared TB a global emergency 25 years ago and highlighted the urgent need to close the funding gap for TB, including the US $1.3 billion gap for TB R&D.   As the curtain closed on the HLM, world leaders, as expected, endorsed a carefully negotiated political declaration. GHTC was pleased to see it include a commitment to increasing investment in TB R&D by $2 billion and strong recognition of the importance of cross-border, cross-sector collaboration in driving product development. However, we also share concerns raised by other advocates on accountability. For this meeting to catalyze true change, rhetoric must now translate to action, and commitments must be matched with mechanisms that track investments and hold nations accountable. 2. There are many roads on the path to universal health coverage, but innovation can be an accelerator. Universal health coverage (UHC) was another topic that took the spotlight at UNGA 73, championed by the issue’s top “cheerleader in chief” WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanon Ghebreyus, who has made achieving UHC a centerpiece of his directorship. Given the focus of the world’s doctor on UHC, many advocates at UNGA framed their specific issues through the lens of UHC, highlighting the myriad of steps needed to achieve this ambitious goal‒from building a stronger health workforce, to expanding access to medicines, to tackling leading killers like malaria, HIV and AIDS, and TB. Yet, a common theme heard across these conversations is that along each of these roads, innovation can be an accelerator.   Throughout the week, speakers highlighted how innovations and new technologies can help deliver care more efficiently and effectively, improve access and drive down costs, and accelerate countries along the path to achieving UHC. TB advocates highlighted how shorter treatment regimens can improve care, decrease costs, and free up resources, while digital health advocates argued that better use of data can empower health workers to track and treat patients and allocate precious health resources most effectively. Others highlighted how innovative new tools like point-of-care diagnostics can bring improved care to the community level and to people in the most remote corners of the globe. 3. We need additional resources for R&D, and that requires countries to step up in an equitable way. Domestic resource mobilization and equitable financing were words repeated throughout the week, particularly in conversations around the TB HLM and closing the TB R&D funding gap. Advocates, think tanks, and even government officials, argued that high-burden TB countries need to increase domestic investment in TB R&D and treatment. Some advocates have called for a “fair share” or equitable financing approach to TB R&D financing, with each country committing to spend .1 percent of their GDP on R&D. Others spoke to the potential of the BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—to play a greater role in financing R&D.   While much of the TB financing dialogue focused on increasing public sector contributions, conversations also highlighted the impact and further potential of financing models like the airline-tax-funded work of UNITAID or public-private partnership approaches—like product development partnerships and the work of the Global Health Innovative Technology Fund—which have married multisector contributions to bring novel, affordable, accessible tools to market. Other speakers highlighted the opportunity for industry to increase its TB R&D investment, though many lamented that although industry has brought new TB drugs and diagnostics to market in recent years, uptake has been slow due to high product costs. 4. There is reason for optimism and reason for concern. The mood seemed mercurial in midtown Manhattan, as UNGA orators vacillated between optimism and concern about the future of global health and development. In the drumbeat to UNGA, the always-impatient optimists Bill and Melinda Gates unveiled their foundation’s Goalkeepers report. The report’s stylish line graphs, which show a downward trajectory on health issues like child mortality, are uplifting and inspiring—a great reminder of the staggering progress we’ve achieved in global health and what’s possible for the future.   The basis of our optimism about the world has always been our belief in the power of innovation to redefine what’s possible – Bill and Melinda Gates   Yet, three years in, it has also become clear the world is not on track to meet the Global Goals. And even the optimistic Gates are reminding us that though we hold the blueprint for a healthier world, continued progress is not inevitable. The choices our policymakers implement today will determine whether progress continues or stalls. Throughout the week, many speakers gave voice to fears, highlighting concerns that foreign aid spending is under increased attack in leading donors countries like the United States—a notion echoed in President Trump’s speech to the Assembly—and that political changes like Brexit and an “America First” doctrine signal a movement toward isolationism over collective action. Given significant global health R&D funding comes through foreign aid budgets and the necessity of collaborative global action to deliver the cures of tomorrow, these developments are worrisome. Will these trends threaten progress, or will momentum continue? That’s a question we’ll surely continue to reflect on for many UNGAs to come.